I tried a search and couldn't find anything. The New Retribution Phalanx formation says :
From the Sands, We Rise: If the unit of Necron Warriors or Canopek Scarabs from a Retribution Phalanx is wiped out, it can return to the battlefield at the start of your next turn. The unit must set up within 3″ of the Necron Overlord from this Formation,
So the unit that comes back, warriors or scarabs, when they are placed can they move and charge that turn they come back?
knightpredator wrote: I tried a search and couldn't find anything. The New Retribution Phalanx formation says :
From the Sands, We Rise: If the unit of Necron Warriors or Canopek Scarabs from a Retribution Phalanx is wiped out, it can return to the battlefield at the start of your next turn. The unit must set up within 3″ of the Necron Overlord from this Formation,
So the unit that comes back, warriors or scarabs, when they are placed can they move and charge that turn they come back?
I don't see any reason why not. They aren't coming in from Reserves or anything. They're simply being setup.
Not only is the answer yes, but notice that it says that the "unit" has to be set up within 3'' of the overlord. Not "The model must set up within 3″ of the Necron Overlord", nor "The unit must set up wholly within 3″ of the Necron Overlord". It's therefore entirely possible for a ten-strong squad to form a conga line nearly 30'' long, pretty much guaranteeing a charge (except for overwatch) against anyone on the board.
Mallich wrote: Not only is the answer yes, but notice that it says that the "unit" has to be set up within 3'' of the overlord. Not "The model must set up within 3″ of the Necron Overlord", nor "The unit must set up wholly within 3″ of the Necron Overlord". It's therefore entirely possible for a ten-strong squad to form a conga line nearly 30'' long, pretty much guaranteeing a charge (except for overwatch) against anyone on the board.
GW, learn to write frelling rules...
Yea, the congo line is a beauty to behold in action. I have a VSG in my list so that the scarab unit can trail a model with a toe in the VSG bubble to make the whole unit effectively invulnerable to small arms overwatch fire.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also the rule is somewhat vague. It does not specify that the starting or original unit returns, only that the unit returns.
What happens if a unit of scarabs whose unit size has been increased by Spyders is returned to play?
What happens if a unit of scarabs with ICs attached return to play? ICs are part of the unit for all rules purposes.
Even though the answers to those questions might seem obvious from a RAI perspective, what does the RAW say?
Mallich wrote: Not only is the answer yes, but notice that it says that the "unit" has to be set up within 3'' of the overlord. Not "The model must set up within 3″ of the Necron Overlord", nor "The unit must set up wholly within 3″ of the Necron Overlord". It's therefore entirely possible for a ten-strong squad to form a conga line nearly 30'' long, pretty much guaranteeing a charge (except for overwatch) against anyone on the board.
GW, learn to write frelling rules...
Yea, the congo line is a beauty to behold in action. I have a VSG in my list so that the scarab unit can trail a model with a toe in the VSG bubble to make the whole unit effectively invulnerable to small arms overwatch fire.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also the rule is somewhat vague. It does not specify that the starting or original unit returns, only that the unit returns.
What happens if a unit of scarabs whose unit size has been increased by Spyders is returned to play?
What happens if a unit of scarabs with ICs attached return to play? ICs are part of the unit for all rules purposes.
Even though the answers to those questions might seem obvious from a RAI perspective, what does the RAW say?
This is a permissive ruleset. You'd need permission to return EXTRA Scarabs or ICs along with "the unit", which is described on your army list and starts with a fixed number of models. In effect, RaW has nothing to say, because this is not something that you're ever told to do.
A) I have a unit of 12 scarabs that gets wiped away. Spyders add bases to the unit itself so it is indeed a unit of 12, not a unit of 9 with extras attached. The rule gives permission to return the unit to play. The unit of 12 is returned to play.
B) I have a unit of scarabs that gets wiped away while an IC is attached to it. The rule gives permission to return the unit to play. As we know, ICs "count as part of the unit for all rules purposes". The unit of scarabs is returned to play with the IC attached.
Permission is clearly granted to return the unit to play.
Zimko wrote: Has it been discussed whether a Ghost Ark would return with the Warriors? Does both the Ghost Ark and the Warriors need to die before they return?
A Ghost Ark is an entirely separate unit that is not part of the unit of Warriors. It is just a unit that was purchased on the ALE of the Warriors.
So no, a Ghost Ark would not return with the Warriors or need to be destroyed before the Warriors return.
col_impact wrote: A) I have a unit of 12 scarabs that gets wiped away. Spyders add bases to the unit itself so it is indeed a unit of 12, not a unit of 9 with extras attached. The rule gives permission to return the unit to play. The unit of 12 is returned to play.
B) I have a unit of scarabs that gets wiped away while an IC is attached to it. The rule gives permission to return the unit to play. As we know, ICs "count as part of the unit for all rules purposes". The unit of scarabs is returned to play with the IC attached.
Permission is clearly granted to return the unit to play.
Sigh.
1. Demonstrate that the Scarabs are all removed AT THE SAME TIME. I would content that since wounds are almost always allocated one at a time, that when you remove the last Scarab, there is only one Scarab in the unit. By your own logic, you'd only return that one Scarab as he was the only remaining member of the unit when it got wiped out.
2. Demonstrate permission for the IC to be considered a part of the unit at the start of YOUR NEXT TURN after the unit has been wiped out. Clearly, the IC is a member of the unit when he's in play and attached to the unit. I think you'll have a hard time demonstrating that he's a member of the unit when he's not in play and neither is the unit he was previously attached to before being killed.
1. Demonstrate that the Scarabs are all removed AT THE SAME TIME. I would content that since wounds are almost always allocated one at a time, that when you remove the last Scarab, there is only one Scarab in the unit. By your own logic, you'd only return that one Scarab as he was the only remaining member of the unit when it got wiped out.
Incorrect. I don't have to demonstrate anything. Spyders added bases to the unit so it became a unit with a unit size of 12 permanently. The rule returns the unit to play, which in this case is a unit of 12. The rule does not say "original" or "starting" or anything to that effect. The burden of proof is on you since I quite clearly and uequivocally have a unit of 12 scarabs and a rule that returns that unit to play. You have to show that I somehow do not have a unit of 12 scarabs or that the rule somehow says "starting".
Technically, when I remove the last scarab unit I do not have a unit of one scarab (there are zero models on the table - I do not even have that one), but I do have a unit of 12 scarabs that has been "wiped out". So that's the unit that gets returned to play.
Kriswall wrote: 2. Demonstrate permission for the IC to be considered a part of the unit at the start of YOUR NEXT TURN after the unit has been wiped out. Clearly, the IC is a member of the unit when he's in play and attached to the unit. I think you'll have a hard time demonstrating that he's a member of the unit when he's not in play and neither is the unit he was previously attached to before being killed.
The rule triggers once and only once when the unit is wiped out and causes an effect to happen "at the start of your next turn". If the IC is attached when the unit is wiped out, the IC will return to play along with it, since it was at that point in time "part of the unit for all rules purposes."
Even if the IC is the last to die, he does not detach from the scarabs unless he is in play at the start of the following phase.
Spoiler:
If an Independent Character joins a unit, and all other models in that unit are killed, he again becomes a unit of one model at the start of the following phase.
This rules interaction underscores a black hole in the rules with regards to units that are put into an undefined limbo with effects such as these. When the scarabs are wiped out they are removed from the game. They are no longer in play or subject to any rules, but nonetheless they come back, because of a rule triggered last turn.
1. Demonstrate that the Scarabs are all removed AT THE SAME TIME. I would content that since wounds are almost always allocated one at a time, that when you remove the last Scarab, there is only one Scarab in the unit. By your own logic, you'd only return that one Scarab as he was the only remaining member of the unit when it got wiped out.
Incorrect. I don't have to demonstrate anything. Spyders added bases to the unit so it became a unit with a unit size of 12 permanently. The rule returns the unit to play, which in this case is a unit of 12. The rule does not say "original" or "starting" or anything to that effect. The burden of proof is on you since I quite clearly and uequivocally have a unit of 12 scarabs and a rule that returns that unit to play. You have to show that I somehow do not have a unit of 12 scarabs or that the rule somehow says "starting".
Technically, when I remove the last scarab unit I do not have a unit of one scarab (there are zero models on the table - I do not even have that one), but I do have a unit of 12 scarabs that has been "wiped out". So that's the unit that gets returned to play.
Kriswall wrote: 2. Demonstrate permission for the IC to be considered a part of the unit at the start of YOUR NEXT TURN after the unit has been wiped out. Clearly, the IC is a member of the unit when he's in play and attached to the unit. I think you'll have a hard time demonstrating that he's a member of the unit when he's not in play and neither is the unit he was previously attached to before being killed.
The rule triggers once and only once when the unit is wiped out and causes an effect to happen "at the start of your next turn". If the IC is attached when the unit is wiped out, the IC will return to play along with it, since it was at that point in time "part of the unit for all rules purposes."
Even if the IC is the last to die, he does not detach from the scarabs unless he is in play at the start of the following phase.
Spoiler:
If an Independent Character joins a unit, and all other models in that unit are killed, he again becomes a unit of one model at the start of the following phase.
You just proved Kriswall right twice in one post. . .
There's no point arguing. You're making an assumption that an IC who is not in play and not in reserves CAN be attached to a unit that is not in play and not in reserves. There is no rules support for this in the rulebook at all.
Kriswall wrote: There's no point arguing. You're making an assumption that an IC who is not in play and not in reserves CAN be attached to a unit that is not in play and not in reserves. There is no rules support for this in the rulebook at all.
No assumption is made. The rule clearly indicates that the unit of scarabs that is wiped out is returned to play and the IC is part of that unit for all rules purposes. The IC is only permitted to detach from the unit in specified circumstances and removed from play is not one of them.
Kriswall wrote: There's no point arguing. You're making an assumption that an IC who is not in play and not in reserves CAN be attached to a unit that is not in play and not in reserves. There is no rules support for this in the rulebook at all.
No assumption is made. The rule clearly indicates that the unit of scarabs that is wiped out is returned to play and the IC is part of that unit for all rules purposes.
"If an Independent Character joins a unit, and all other models in that unit are killed, he again becomes a unit of one model at the start of the following phase."
Explain to me how he's still a part of the unit THE NEXT TURN when he has become a unit of one model at the start of the NEXT PHASE.
Kriswall wrote: There's no point arguing. You're making an assumption that an IC who is not in play and not in reserves CAN be attached to a unit that is not in play and not in reserves. There is no rules support for this in the rulebook at all.
No assumption is made. The rule clearly indicates that the unit of scarabs that is wiped out is returned to play and the IC is part of that unit for all rules purposes.
"If an Independent Character joins a unit, and all other models in that unit are killed, he again becomes a unit of one model at the start of the following phase."
Explain to me how he's still a part of the unit THE NEXT TURN when he has become a unit of one model at the start of the NEXT PHASE.
The IC is removed from the game at that point in time and not subject to rules for units that are in the game. When the unit returns to play the IC becomes once agains subject to rules for units that are in the game.
Spoiler:
REMOVED AS A CASUALTY AND COMPLETELY DESTROYED
Models that are removed as casualties are removed from the table and placed to one side. When all of the models in a unit are removed as casualties, the unit is said to have been ‘completely destroyed’.
Models that are ‘removed from play’ by special rules or attacks are also considered to have been removed as casualties, as far as the game rules are concerned.
Kriswall wrote: There's no point arguing. You're making an assumption that an IC who is not in play and not in reserves CAN be attached to a unit that is not in play and not in reserves. There is no rules support for this in the rulebook at all.
No assumption is made. The rule clearly indicates that the unit of scarabs that is wiped out is returned to play and the IC is part of that unit for all rules purposes.
"If an Independent Character joins a unit, and all other models in that unit are killed, he again becomes a unit of one model at the start of the following phase."
Explain to me how he's still a part of the unit THE NEXT TURN when he has become a unit of one model at the start of the NEXT PHASE.
The IC is removed from the game at that point in time and not subject to rules for units that are in the game. When the unit returns to play the IC becomes once agains subject to rules for units that are in the game.
Spoiler:
REMOVED AS A CASUALTY AND COMPLETELY DESTROYED
Models that are removed as casualties are removed from the table and placed to one side. When all of the models in a unit are removed as casualties, the unit is said to have been ‘completely destroyed’.
Models that are ‘removed from play’ by special rules or attacks are also considered to have been removed as casualties, as far as the game rules are concerned.
If he's not subject the rules for units in the game, then why is he still allowed to use the IC rule to star attached to the unit?
Kriswall wrote: There's no point arguing. You're making an assumption that an IC who is not in play and not in reserves CAN be attached to a unit that is not in play and not in reserves. There is no rules support for this in the rulebook at all.
No assumption is made. The rule clearly indicates that the unit of scarabs that is wiped out is returned to play and the IC is part of that unit for all rules purposes.
"If an Independent Character joins a unit, and all other models in that unit are killed, he again becomes a unit of one model at the start of the following phase."
Explain to me how he's still a part of the unit THE NEXT TURN when he has become a unit of one model at the start of the NEXT PHASE.
The IC is removed from the game at that point in time and not subject to rules for units that are in the game. When the unit returns to play the IC becomes once agains subject to rules for units that are in the game.
Spoiler:
REMOVED AS A CASUALTY AND COMPLETELY DESTROYED
Models that are removed as casualties are removed from the table and placed to one side. When all of the models in a unit are removed as casualties, the unit is said to have been ‘completely destroyed’.
Models that are ‘removed from play’ by special rules or attacks are also considered to have been removed as casualties, as far as the game rules are concerned.
If he's not subject the rules for units in the game, then why is he still allowed to use the IC rule to star attached to the unit?
The IC is in a pile on the side of table and part of a unit of scarabs that is designated as "completely destroyed" ie "wiped out" and missing out on any rules to detach since he is not in play.
That pile has permission to return to play.
You should also note that in the case of the unit of 12 scarabs there is also a pile on the side of the table with 12 scarabs designated as "completely destroyed" ie "wiped out".
That pile of 12 scarabs also has permission to return to play. The rule does not indicate "starting" or "original" so the full pile of 12 returns to play.
How is the IC able to take advantage of the rule saying he's a part of the unit when off the table, but he's NOT able to use the rule saying he's no longer a part of the unit cause they died?
If "The IC is removed from the game at that point in time and not subject to rules for units that are in the game" then why is he allowed to still count as a part of the scarab unit for all rules purposes?
Kriswall wrote: How is the IC able to take advantage of the rule saying he's a part of the unit when off the table, but he's NOT able to use the rule saying he's no longer a part of the unit cause they died?
The rules place him on the side of the table as part of the unit. That state of affairs can only be changed if/when the unit is back on the table. The IC is in a "not in game" zone.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
CrownAxe wrote: If "The IC is removed from the game at that point in time and not subject to rules for units that are in the game" then why is he allowed to still count as a part of the scarab unit for all rules purposes?
anwered above
Automatically Appended Next Post: So I guess you all have conceded that a unit of 12 scarabs will return to play as unit of 12 scarabs?
It seems pretty clear that RAW supports that.
The unit of 12 is removed from play as part of a unit that is "completely destroyed" (ie wiped out) and the rule gives that unit permission to return to play and does not specify "starting" or "original".
Nobody agrees with you. Your justification is tenuous at best. The general consensus is that the unit will return as listed on the army list, with no previously attached ICs and no additional Scarabs.
Kriswall wrote: Nobody agrees with you. Your justification is tenuous at best. The general consensus is that the unit will return as listed on the army list, with no previously attached ICs and no additional Scarabs.
This thread can now be locked.
That is not what the rules say.
Popular consensus does not change RAW.
You are of course free to house rule it the way you like.
Yeah impact, I MIGHT buy the character coming back if they died before the entire unit was wiped out or everyone died at the same time, but the HQ will definitely be their own unit when everyone else dies.
Kriswall wrote: How is the IC able to take advantage of the rule saying he's a part of the unit when off the table, but he's NOT able to use the rule saying he's no longer a part of the unit cause they died?
The rules place him on the side of the table as part of the unit. That state of affairs can only be changed if/when the unit is back on the table. The IC is in a "not in game" zone.
Show the rule that places him to the side of the table WITH the unit. Also show the rule that shows the IC is still joined to the unit. The IC only counts as part of the unit "for all rules purposes" when he is joined.
If an Independent Character joins a unit, and all other models in that unit are killed, he again becomes a unit of one model at the start of the following phase.
This rules discounts your IC claim. Long story short, your claiming "rules" but have nothing in the rulebook to cite other than your opinion.
Kriswall wrote: Nobody agrees with you. Your justification is tenuous at best. The general consensus is that the unit will return as listed on the army list, with no previously attached ICs and no additional Scarabs.
This thread can now be locked.
That is not what the rules say.
Popular consensus does not change RAW.
You are of course free to house rule it the way you like.
Sigh...
So explain this. Step me through the process that wipes out both IC and Scarabs at the same time. The reason I ask is because in my mind, one of two things happens... Either the IC dies first, thus removing him from the unit and placing him to the side, or the Scarabs die first, again, removing the IC from the unit and causing him to reform his own unit.
Fun facts...
1. In the Shooting Phase, wounds are allocated "one at a time", so it's impossible for Scarabs and IC to be removed as casualties simultaneously.
2. In the Assault Phase, wounds are allocated "just like in the Shooting Phase", i.e., one at a time, so again, it's impossible for Scarabs and IC to be removed as casualties simultaneously.
I've eliminated standard shooting and assault caused wounds. Please explain your idea about how the models are removed as casualties simultaneously.
IC are a part of the unit so long as they are in coherency with a unit. Wound allocation goes per model. Either a) the ic is killed first and it is now no longer a part of the unit because he is no longer in coherency (because dead) or b) the unit he is attached to is killed first and the ic is no longer a part of the unit because he is no longer in coherency because no other models in the unit exist for him to be in coherency with. It is impossible for a ic to die and be a part of a unit that gets wiped out for effects that take place after the unit is eliminated.
Kriswall wrote: Nobody agrees with you. Your justification is tenuous at best. The general consensus is that the unit will return as listed on the army list, with no previously attached ICs and no additional Scarabs.
This thread can now be locked.
That is not what the rules say.
Popular consensus does not change RAW.
You are of course free to house rule it the way you like.
Sigh...
So explain this. Step me through the process that wipes out both IC and Scarabs at the same time. The reason I ask is because in my mind, one of two things happens... Either the IC dies first, thus removing him from the unit and placing him to the side, or the Scarabs die first, again, removing the IC from the unit and causing him to reform his own unit.
Fun facts...
1. In the Shooting Phase, wounds are allocated "one at a time", so it's impossible for Scarabs and IC to be removed as casualties simultaneously.
2. In the Assault Phase, wounds are allocated "just like in the Shooting Phase", i.e., one at a time, so again, it's impossible for Scarabs and IC to be removed as casualties simultaneously.
I've eliminated standard shooting and assault caused wounds. Please explain your idea about how the models are removed as casualties simultaneously.
Being removed from play is not a trigger for being detached from the unit in the Independent Character rules.
When the IC is removed from play his status is part of the scarab unit. When the whole unit is removed from play, the whole unit is designated "completely destroyed" and the "wiped out" rule gets triggered to return the unit of scarabs to play. The IC status is still part of the scarab unit so he returns to play along with the scarab unit.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Lance845 wrote: IC are a part of the unit so long as they are in coherency with a unit. Wound allocation goes per model. Either a) the ic is killed first and it is now no longer a part of the unit because he is no longer in coherency (because dead) or b) the unit he is attached to is killed first and the ic is no longer a part of the unit because he is no longer in coherency because no other models in the unit exist for him to be in coherency with. It is impossible for a ic to die and be a part of a unit that gets wiped out for effects that take place after the unit is eliminated.
Removed from play is removed from play. It's a limbo - no rules zone. Coherency is a rule that affects models that are in play.
If the IC is removed from play while part of the scarab unit he will return to play as part of the scarab unit. Everything in between being removed from play and returning to play is limbo - nothing happens.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Since the conversation has fixated on the attached IC, I guess it's been begrudgingly accepted by the thread that a unit of twelve scarabs will return to play RAW as a unit of twelve scarabs since the rule clearly lacks the specification of "starting" or "original".
Kriswall wrote: Nobody agrees with you. Your justification is tenuous at best. The general consensus is that the unit will return as listed on the army list, with no previously attached ICs and no additional Scarabs.
This thread can now be locked.
That is not what the rules say.
Popular consensus does not change RAW.
You are of course free to house rule it the way you like.
Actually, that IS what the rules say. When the rest of the unit is wiped out, it returns to being its own unit at the end of that Phase. There is no requirement that the IC still be on the board when this happens.
Kriswall wrote: Nobody agrees with you. Your justification is tenuous at best. The general consensus is that the unit will return as listed on the army list, with no previously attached ICs and no additional Scarabs.
This thread can now be locked.
That is not what the rules say.
Popular consensus does not change RAW.
You are of course free to house rule it the way you like.
Actually, that IS what the rules say. When the rest of the unit is wiped out, it returns to being its own unit at the end of that Phase. There is no requirement that the IC still be on the board when this happens.
The IC is removed from the game at that point and not part of the game until the unit returns to play. Removed from the game is removed from the game.
Kriswall wrote: Nobody agrees with you. Your justification is tenuous at best. The general consensus is that the unit will return as listed on the army list, with no previously attached ICs and no additional Scarabs.
This thread can now be locked.
That is not what the rules say.
Popular consensus does not change RAW.
You are of course free to house rule it the way you like.
Actually, that IS what the rules say. When the rest of the unit is wiped out, it returns to being its own unit at the end of that Phase. There is no requirement that the IC still be on the board when this happens.
The IC is removed from the game at that point and not subject to the rules of the game until the unit returns to play. Removed from the game is removed from the game.
@col_impact:
So how many models strong is the resurrected unit?
Say I had a unit of 10 warriors from this Formation.
T1 I attach an IC to them.
T2 they lose 5 models.
T3 the IC dies whilst a part of the unit.
T4 the rest of the unit (the remaining 5 warriors) is wiped.
How many models will be returned?
And please explain why.
If at any point, a model’s Strength, Toughness or Wounds are reduced to 0, it is removed from play as a casualty.
None of which supports this:
col_impact wrote:The IC is removed from the game at that point and not part of the game until the unit returns to play. Removed from the game is removed from the game.
Or invalidates the fact that the IC is removed from the unit at the end of the phase the rest of the unit is wiped out. Nothing about this rule says this does not apply if the IC is also killed.
In fact, if we have Kill Points as precedence and reminder for them being two units after being wiped out.
Spoiler:
Remember that Independent Characters and Dedicated Transports are individual units and award Victory Points if they are destroyed.
Units that are not in play are not subject to the rules of units in play.
Otherwise you would have Zooming Flyers either wrecking themselves automatically or going into Ongoing Reserves on turn one.
Units that are not in play skip play until they are permitted to enter play.
The IC is part of the scarab unit when he is removed from play and skips play until he re-enters play.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Matt.Kingsley wrote: @col_impact:
So how many models strong is the resurrected unit?
Say I had a unit of 10 warriors from this Formation.
T1 I attach an IC to them.
T2 they lose 5 models.
T3 the IC dies whilst a part of the unit.
T4 the rest of the unit (the remaining 5 warriors) is wiped.
How many models will be returned?
And please explain why.
Spoiler:
If at any point, a model’s Strength, Toughness or Wounds are reduced to 0, it is removed from play as a casualty.
Spoiler:
Models that are removed as casualties are removed from the table and placed to one side. When all of the models in a unit are removed as casualties, the unit is said to have been ‘completely destroyed’.
5 models are removed from play. The IC is removed from play when he is part of the unit of Warriors. When all of the models in the Warrior unit are removed from play, the unit is designated as 'wiped out'. The rule triggers to return the unit of Warriors. The unit of Warriors includes the IC - only a rule affecting units in play could have detached him from the unit of Warriors.
col_impact wrote: Units that are not in play are not subject to the rules of units in play.
Otherwise you would have Zooming Flyers either wrecking themselves automatically or going into Ongoing Reserves on turn one.
Units that are not in play skip play until they are permitted to enter play.
The IC is part of the scarab unit when he is removed from play and skips play until he re-enters play.
Incorrect on several fronts.
Units in Reserves are not in play, but they are still subject to the rules of units in play.
An IC in a unit is part of the unit until he leaves it. He can leave it by dying, moving out of coherency, or having the rest of the unit die. The rule does not care if the IC survives this or not. At the end of the Phase the Scarabs/Warriors and IC die, the rest of the unit has died, so the IC is removed from the unit. This is substantiated by the reminder in the Objective of Purge the Alien.
If a unit that is not in play is not subjected to the rules of units in play, then the unit in question cannot be brought back on the board, since it will not be affected by its rules any more than a unit in Reserves can be affected by the Warlord Trait that affects Reserves. Do Space Marine Bikes suddenly change from Troops to Fast Attack when their Bike Captain dies? No.
You bring no evidence that once a model is removed from play all rules regarding it are null and void. Indeed, the very concept of it is denied by virtue of the very rule you are trying to invoke, along with numerous other rules which have provided similar benefits (Send in the Next Wave, Endless Swarm, etc). I have presented evidence that the IC is considered a separate unit when dead as considered by the same rulebook when the unit has died.
The one real question I have regarding this is do these units count as a Kill Point on the first kill or the last? Or is it every time it dies it provides one? This rule does not address it like Send in the Next Wave or Endless Swarm did.
Units in Reserves are not in play, but they are still subject to the rules of units in play.
Explain what happens to Zooming Flyers on turn one of the Movement Phase. The Movement Phase does not specify just units in play. So by your logic the Zooming Flyer in Reserves would be required to move.
So a Zooming Flyer which is required to move 18" will crash if it does not. Alternatively it will go into Ongoing Reserves when it winds up off the Battlefield and arrive without Reserve Roll on turn 2. Take your pick. The Zooming Flyer case proves that the rules for units in play do not apply to the units that are not in play. Zoom. Zoom. Zoom.
So since the IC is removed from play, the IC is not subject to the rules of units in play, unless a rule specifies that it affects a unit that is in this removed from play limbo. This is obvious. If units that are not in play are subject to the rules of units in play the game breaks. Zoom. Zoom. Zoom
Spoiler:
If a Zooming Flyer is forced to move less than 18" in its own Movement phase, it is automatically Wrecked.
Spoiler:
It’s quite likely that a Flyer making a Zoom move will leave the board, either deliberately or by accident. If this happens, the Flyer is said to have left combat airspace – it then enters Ongoing Reserves.
We can come to no other conclusion from the Zooming Flyer case that the BRB treats units that are removed from play as exactly removed from play and not subject to the regular rules of play.
An IC in a unit is part of the unit until he leaves it. He can leave it by dying, moving out of coherency, or having the rest of the unit die.
Read the IC rules. The IC does not leave the unit when he dies. He can move out of coherency and detach during the movement phase. If the rest of the unit dies, he will detach next phase.
None of these things transpire for the IC that is removed from play as part of a scarab unit. The IC is removed from play and is skipping play until the scarab unit has permission to re-enter play.
You bring no evidence that once a model is removed from play all rules regarding it are null and void. Indeed, the very concept of it is denied by virtue of the very rule you are trying to invoke, along with numerous other rules which have provided similar benefits (Send in the Next Wave, Endless Swarm, etc).
Once a unit is removed from play it is a non-entity in the game and does not interact with the game in any way. The rules must specify that they can affect units that are in this 'removed from play' limbo. Units that are not in play skip all the regular rules of play unless there is specific exemption (e.g. 'Reserve Rolls' and 'From the Sands, We Rise').
Otherwise, the game breaks and all the zooming flyers in reserve self-destruct on turn one by being forced to go through the Movement Phase.
Also, it's interesting that the discussion has now fixated on the IC issue.
So I guess you all have conceded that a unit of 12 scarabs will return to play as unit of 12 scarabs?
It seems pretty clear that RAW supports that.
The unit of 12 is removed from play as part of a unit that is "completely destroyed" (ie wiped out) and the rule gives that unit permission to return to play and does not specify "starting" or "original".
So by your claim, the IC is still part of the unit when he dies right? At what point does he separate for the purpose of adding up victory points? Or are you claiming that killing a unit of Warriors with an IC attached only grants 1 Victory Point?
Kriswall wrote: Nobody agrees with you. Your justification is tenuous at best. The general consensus is that the unit will return as listed on the army list, with no previously attached ICs and no additional Scarabs.
This thread can now be locked.
That is not what the rules say.
Popular consensus does not change RAW.
You are of course free to house rule it the way you like.
Actually, that IS what the rules say. When the rest of the unit is wiped out, it returns to being its own unit at the end of that Phase. There is no requirement that the IC still be on the board when this happens.
The IC is removed from the game at that point and not part of the game until the unit returns to play. Removed from the game is removed from the game.
This is called hypocritical. Your claiming the rules apply while the model is off the board, yet claiming the rules dont apply when the model is off the board. The rule is clear, when the unit dies, the IC becomes separate.
Units in Reserves are not in play, but they are still subject to the rules of units in play.
Explain what happens to Zooming Flyers on turn one of the Movement Phase. The Movement Phase does not specify just units in play. So by your logic the Zooming Flyer in Reserves would be required to move.
Movement rules only affect models on the table or Arriving From Reserves. Can you show anything different?
An IC in a unit is part of the unit until he leaves it. He can leave it by dying, moving out of coherency, or having the rest of the unit die.
Read the IC rules. The IC does not leave the unit when he dies. He can move out of coherency and detach during the movement phase. If the rest of the unit dies, he will detach next phase.
Sure he does, as he is no longer in coherency at the end of the next Movement Phase, he has left the unit. If you have been removed from play, you are not an n coherency.
None of these things transpire for the IC that is removed from play as part of a scarab unit. The IC is removed from play and is skipping play until the scarab unit has permission to re-enter play.
If the rest of the unit is wiped out, it is not considered wiped out if the IC died, too? Random illogic on that one.
Charistoph wrote: You bring no evidence that once a model is removed from play all rules regarding it are null and void. Indeed, the very concept of it is denied by virtue of the very rule you are trying to invoke, along with numerous other rules which have provided similar benefits (Send in the Next Wave, Endless Swarm, etc).
Once a unit is removed from play it is a non-entity in the game and does not interact with the game in any way. The rules must specify that they can affect units that are in this 'removed from play' limbo. Units that are not in play skip all the regular rules of play unless there is specific exemption (e.g. 'Reserve Rolls' and 'From the Sands, We Rise').
Otherwise, the game breaks and all the zooming flyers in reserve self-destruct on turn one by being forced to go through the Movement Phase.
That was not your case, though. You said that units that were not in play could not be acted upon, but quoted nothing to support this. You insist that they cannot be acted upon, but there are exceptions. The IC rule about reverting to a single unit is not dependent on the IC being in play to be considered, as the Objectives rules in the Purge The Alien Mission remind us.
So, no, an IC in a Swept Warrior unit is removed from the unit at the start of the next Turn.
Units in Reserves are not in play, but they are still subject to the rules of units in play.
Explain what happens to Zooming Flyers on turn one of the Movement Phase. The Movement Phase does not specify just units in play. So by your logic the Zooming Flyer in Reserves would be required to move.
Movement rules only affect models on the table or Arriving From Reserves. Can you show anything different?
The Zooming Flyer that is not in play either skips the Movement Phase and is not subject to the Movement Phase rules because it is not in play (which is my argument).
-- OR --
The Zooming Flyer (that is not in play) participates in the Movement Phase and is subject to the Movement Phase rules (which is your argument).
The Zooming Flyer is required to move at least 18" in the Movement Phase or it wrecks.
You are required to show how a Zooming Flyer successfully moves 18" on the turn 1 Movement Phase (to avoid auto-wrecking) or concede that the Zooming Flyer is not subject to the rules of the Movement Phase since it is out of play
My argument lets the Zooming Flyers live. Your argument breaks the game and Zooming Flyers auto-wreck on turn one. Your argument is wholly untenable.
The game breaks unless units that are removed from play are exempted from regular rules of play and only subject to specific rules that apply to the removed from game zone.
Sure he does, as he is no longer in coherency at the end of the next Movement Phase, he has left the unit. If you have been removed from play, you are not an n coherency.
You are required to show that the rules of the Movement Phase (and other phases like the Shooting Phase and Pyschic Phase) apply to units that are not in play.
If they do apply then Zooming Flyers auto-wreck on turn one, units in reserve can start moving about and simply walk onto the battlefield from their spots on the side of the table, and units in reserve can start shooting at units that are in LOS from their position on the side of the table off the battlefield.
A model that is not in play skips the regular rules of play until it enters or re-enters play. A model that is not in play is only subject to the rules that address this 'removed from game' zone and will become subject to the regular rules of play when it enters play.
Charistoph wrote: You bring no evidence that once a model is removed from play all rules regarding it are null and void. Indeed, the very concept of it is denied by virtue of the very rule you are trying to invoke, along with numerous other rules which have provided similar benefits (Send in the Next Wave, Endless Swarm, etc).
Once a unit is removed from play it is a non-entity in the game and does not interact with the game in any way. The rules must specify that they can affect units that are in this 'removed from play' limbo. Units that are not in play skip all the regular rules of play unless there is specific exemption (e.g. 'Reserve Rolls' and 'From the Sands, We Rise').
Otherwise, the game breaks and all the zooming flyers in reserve self-destruct on turn one by being forced to go through the Movement Phase.
That was not your case, though. You said that units that were not in play could not be acted upon, but quoted nothing to support this. You insist that they cannot be acted upon, but there are exceptions. The IC rule about reverting to a single unit is not dependent on the IC being in play to be considered, as the Objectives rules in the Purge The Alien Mission remind us.
So, no, an IC in a Swept Warrior unit is removed from the unit at the start of the next Turn.
I have clarified my case for your benefit since I was being vague earlier. A model that is not in play is not subject to the regular rules of play until the model is in play. A model that is not in play is only subject to the rules that specifically address the "removed from play" zone.
You are required to show how the IC rules that would detach the IC from the unit of scarabs (e.g. coherency, rest of the unit dying) are specifically affecting the "removed from play" zone. Otherwise the IC that is part of the unit of scarabs in the "removed from game" zone skips that rule since its not in play. The IC is held in the non-interactive limbo until he re-renters play.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Zimko wrote: So by your claim, the IC is still part of the unit when he dies right? At what point does he separate for the purpose of adding up victory points? Or are you claiming that killing a unit of Warriors with an IC attached only grants 1 Victory Point?
The rule specifically applies at the end of the game and specifically applies to units that are not on the board at the end of the game. What leads you to believe that it would apply earlier than that?
Spoiler:
At the end of the game, each player receives 1 Victory Point for each enemy unit that has been completely destroyed. Units that are Falling Back at the end of the game, and units that are not on the board at the end of the game, count as destroyed for the purposes of this mission. Remember that Independent Characters and Dedicated Transports are individual units and award Victory Points if they are destroyed.
This rule also means that no victory points are scored for a unit that is destroyed and then re-enters play. The Kill Point is tallied only at the end of the game.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Fragile wrote: This is called hypocritical. Your claiming the rules apply while the model is off the board, yet claiming the rules dont apply when the model is off the board. The rule is clear, when the unit dies, the IC becomes separate.
Sorry, my lack of clarity could lead you to think I was hypocritical. I have clarified my case for your benefit since I was being vague earlier. A model that is not in play is not subject to the regular rules of play until the model is in play. A model that is not in play is only subject to the rules that specifically address the "removed from play" zone.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kriswall wrote: Nobody has conceded the 12 Scarab thing. We're trying to address the IC thing first.
Claiming victory like that when the issue hasn't been properly addressed is a poor debate tactic and damages your credibility.
The thread has fallen silent on the issue because there simply is no RAW counter-argument to my RAW argument.
The unit of 12 scarabs gets "wiped out" and removed from play and the models are put on the side of the table. The rule triggers and the unit of scarabs re-enters play.
At no point does any rule specify "original" or "starting" unit, so it can be unequivocally asserted that it is the full pile of 12 scarab models that re-enters play.
Why not the number of models that were removed when the unit died?
If I had a 10-strong scarab unit, added 2 in T1 (for 12) lost 6 in T2 (6 left) and then had the remaining 6 killed, why would 12 return and not 6 or 10?
The unit that died only had 6 models. It have had 12 or 10 at points in the battle, but when it died it was 6 strong. Why is 12 returning more valid than 6 or 10 returning?
Why not the number of models that were removed when the unit died?
If I had a 10-strong scarab unit, added 2 in T1 (for 12) lost 6 in T2 (6 left) and then had the remaining 6 killed, why would 12 return and not 6 or 10?
The unit that died only had 6 models. It have had 12 or 10 at points in the battle, but when it died it was 6 strong. Why is 12 returning more valid than 6 or 10 returning?
Because all 12 of the models were removed as casualties from the scarab unit and there are 12 scarab models in the removed from play pile for a scarab unit that is designated "completely destroyed" per the rules.
Spoiler:
Models that are removed as casualties are removed from the table and placed to one side. When all of the models in a unit are removed as casualties, the unit is said to have been ‘completely destroyed’/'wiped out'.
Spoiler:
If the unit of Necron Warriors or Canopek Scarabs from a Retribution Phalanx is wiped out, it can return to the battlefield at the start of your next turn.
The unit of 12 scarabs is not considered wiped out when just the original 9 are removed as casualties. All 12 of the scarabs must be 'wiped out' for the unit to be considered 'wiped out'. At that point there will be a unit of 12 scarabs that are removed from play on the side of the tabletop and designated "completely destroyed". The rule is triggered and returns the unit of 12 to play next turn.
The rules only support returning the 12 that comprise the entire unit and that were designated "completely destroyed" and do not support returning "original" or "starting" size or some other random number.
So you're saying that dead models are still considered part of the unit the were removed from.
I can see that being the case - as far as I can tell the rules never state they aren't - however it does bring up problems when it comes to unit coherency (as all models in a unit must stay in coherency, and if dead models are still counted as being models in the unit then you need to get within 2" of them... somehow).
Matt.Kingsley wrote: So you're saying that dead models are still considered part of the unit the were removed from.
I can see that being the case - as far as I can tell the rules never state they aren't - however it does bring up problems when it comes to unit coherency (as all models in a unit must stay in coherency, and if dead models are still counted as being models in the unit then you need to get within 2" of them... somehow).
The scarab models are part of the unit but are in a "removed from play" zone and so are not subject to the regular rules affecting models in play. The coherency rule must specifically address the removed from play zone or the coherency rule simply does not apply to models that are not in play.
Similarly, the coherency rule does not apply to models that are not in play due to being in Reserves. You do not measure coherency for models in Reserve.
Similarly, regular Movement Phase rules, Shooting rules, Psychic Phase rules, Assault rules are not in effect for models that are not in play. Models in reserve do not move around and shoot at one another in the not in play Reserve zone. Zooming flyers do not blow up turn one because they fail to move 18". The models in Reserve skip regular play until a Reserve Roll allows them to enter play. Models that are not in play can only be addressed by rules that specifically address the removed from play zone.
@ col_impact: Except that isn't what the rules say at all. You even quoted the rules yourself, all they say is that the models are removed from the table and placed to the side, not that they are no longer subject to the rules of the game.
Indeed, the only time that section refers to the game rules is to say "Models that are 'removed from play' by special rules or attacks are also considered to have been removed as casualties, as far as the games rules are concerned."
So yes, models that are removed as casualties are still subject to the game rules unless said game rules say they only apply to models on the table, etc, or other exceptions are made.
FireSkullz2 wrote: I have a solution! Just dont abuse the formation even more by spawning extra scarabs! We all already abuse it enough....
In this forum we discuss what is rules as written. We set aside the issue of whether something is OP or not because of the rules as written.
If the rules as written do indeed lead to someplace that is OP then I am all for nerfing the rule interaction. Sometimes GW writes rules that are loose and lead to OP rule interactions.
But let's figure out what RAW is first.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Matt.Kingsley wrote: @ col_impact:
Except that isn't what the rules say at all.
You even quoted the rules yourself, all they say is that the models are removed from the table and placed to the side, not that they are no longer subject to the rules of the game.
Indeed, the only time that section refers to the game rules is to say "Models that are 'removed from play' by special rules or attacks are also considered to have been removed as casualties, as far as the games rules are concerned."
So yes, models that are removed as casualties are still subject to the game rules unless said game rules say they only apply to models on the table, etc, or other exceptions are made.
Incorrect. I am not saying that the models that are removed from the table are no longer subject to the rules of the game. I am saying that models that are not in play are not subject to the rules of models in play.
Otherwise, you need to explain what happens turn one to the Zooming Flyers in reserve.
And you need to explain why my units in Reserve cannot simply move onto the table top if I place them 1" outside the battlefield on the side of the table. Or shoot onto the table or at units on the battlefield or other units in Reserve.
The Shooting Rules and line of sight rules do not specify units in play. So you need to explain why my Tachyon arrows with infinite range cannot target the opponent's units in Reserve that can be clearly seen at the side of the table.
Not in play means not in play and so not subject to the rules of models in play. Coherency is a rule for models in play.
Models that are not in play are only subject to the rules affecting models in the specific 'not in play' zone.
You can say that all you want, but until you find a rule that says that (which is what your argument is based off) it isn't true.
Now, we can assume that the writers intended for models in reserve/removed from play to not be subject to the Movement, Shooting, etc rules, but no such rule actually exists in the book. (Another reason why playing the game entirely RAW doesn't work)
Also the whole 'not in play' argument requires the models to be removed by an attack or rule that says they are 'removed from play'. All models removed from play are treated as being removed as casualties, but not the other way round.
So RAW you are wrong. RAI you are right unless you also consider that the rules think ICs are a separate unit when killed (From the Eternal War mission Purge the Alien - "Remeber that ICs and DTs are individual units and award Victory Points of destroyed"), so RAI an IC joined to the Warrior or Scarab unit wouldn't come back.
I'm still technically correct (the best kind of correct), removed as a casualty does not equal removed from play. The other way round is true, though.
And that snarky HYWPI comment applies to your posts as well. In your case it's much more pressing as you label your HYWPI arguments as RAW all the freaking time. Also note I clearly labelled it as RAI, as that's what it is.
You are also of course free to play a game of 40k where the Movement, Shooting, Psychic, and Assault rules apply to units in play as well as units that are not in play.
That would mean that you get to put your units in reserve and put them on the table side along your opponent's deployment edge and simply walk them on to the Battlefield turn one right in your opponent's deployment zone.
That would mean that you will also be able to draw line of sight and shoot at your opponent's units in Reserve from your units on the Battlefield or even your from your own units in Reserve.
Your opponent of course will also be able to do the same and soon you will have a game that is being played over an area much larger than the Battlefield.
Not only will you find that you are playing a game of 40k which nobody else plays but you will be violating the definition of the Battlefield.
Spoiler:
THE BATTLEFIELD
The battlefield over which your game is played must be set up before the game begins. This step is split into two parts: creating the battlefield itself, and placing scenery upon it.
The game is played over the battlefield. If a unit is not on the battlefield (ie set to the side in Reserves or set to the side removed from play as a casualty) it is not a part of the regular game play and not taking part in the regular rules of play. Units in 'not in play' zones can only enter play via specific rules that address them in the removed from play zone and enable them to do so. A rule does not affect a removed from game zone unless it specifically has the power to do so.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Matt.Kingsley wrote: I'm still technically correct (the best kind of correct), removed as a casualty does not equal removed from play. The other way round is true, though.
Incorrect. Everything that is removed as a casualty is removed from play. Simply read the rule.
Spoiler:
If at any point, a model’s Strength, Toughness or Wounds are reduced to 0, it is removed from play as a casualty.
Spoiler:
Models that are removed as casualties are removed from the table and placed to one side.
Spoiler:
The battlefield over which your game is played must be set up before the game begins.
Removed as casualty = removed from play. Not on the battlefield = not in play. Removed from the table and placed to one side = removed from play.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Matt.Kingsley wrote: Also note I clearly labelled it as RAI, as that's what it is.
You cannot label it RAI because you cannot read the mind of the rule writer. The rule writer could have easily intended ICs that join the unit to re-spawn with the unit and you cannot prove otherwise.
The only time you can use RAI is when something is patently obvious (e.g. the rules completely break and fall apart unless you do things this obvious way that is not explicitly spelled out in the rules because it can be safely assumed that the rules writer would not publish obviously broken rules.)
Spoiled part 1 says they are removed from play as a casualty if their S, T, or W are reduced to 1. 3 specific circumstances.
The second and third spoilers don't refer to models being in play at all, just that models that are casualties are removed from the table and that you play the game over a battlefield. Woo? That doesn't say that models that are removed from the board are not in play, just that you play the game over a battlefield.
The rules do not state that a model removed from the table as a casualty is always removed from play. Again, still technically correct.
And did I ever say I'd play with casualties and reserves still being able to do things in the various phases? No, I just said that RAW there is nothing restricting them from doing so. I also know you know that because you quoted the post in which I said RAI that isn't the case.
REally playing the "You aren't psychic!!!!1one!" card again? Really? Even after we went over this before and how that's blatantly wrong?
Ah well, if RAI isn't a thing because no one is psychic I guess we'll have to play without the Firespear Strike Force and Canoptek Harvest Formation and go through the various phases of the game with dead models and models in Reserves. I can't wait to shoot you with my dead models! Except I can't, as the game stops in the Psychic phase becuase nothing works. Ah well. Are you going to say otherwise? Unless you're psychic you can't say it's obvious! How do you know they didn't intend for the game to not function?
Spoiled part 1 says they are removed from play as a casualty if their S, T, or W are reduced to 1. 3 specific circumstances.
The second and third spoilers don't refer to models being in play at all, just that models that are casualties are removed from the table and that you play the game over a battlefield. Woo? That doesn't say that models that are removed from the board are not in play, just that you play the game over a battlefield.
The rules do not state that a model removed from the table as a casualty is always removed from play. Again, still technically correct.
And did I ever say I'd play with casualties and reserves still being able to do things in the various phases? No, I just said that RAW there is nothing restricting them from doing so. I also know you know that because you quoted the post in which I said RAI that isn't the case.
REally playing the "You aren't psychic!!!!1one!" card again? Really? Even after we went over this before and how that's blatantly wrong?
Ah well, if RAI isn't a thing because no one is psychic I guess we'll have to play without the Firespear Strike Force and Canoptek Harvest Formation and go through the various phases of the game with dead models and models in Reserves. I can't wait to shoot you with my dead models! Except I can't, as the game stops in the Psychic phase becuase nothing works. Ah well. Are you going to say otherwise? Unless you're psychic you can't say it's obvious! How do you know they didn't intend for the game to not function?
You can only assume that the writers intend the game to function. If you assumed the opposite, that the writers intend the game to not function, then you are a fool for playing it.
So . . . so as long as you endeavor to play the game in good faith you assume that the writers are also endeavoring to provide in good faith a functioning game.
All of this is patently obvious. And only patently obvious things can be labeled RAI.
If you stray from the obvious and start making major assumptions then you cannot really assert RAI because at that point you really do not know what the rule writer definitely had in mind. When you make assumptions you really are house ruling.
The game of 40k is not infallible. There are areas where you rely on patently obvious RAI (where the assumption you make is that the game is meant to function so you choose the functioning path) to get to be able to play the game. But otherwise you can generally follow RAW.
So the only thing you can safely assert as RAI in the context of this thread is that the regular Movement Phase rules, Shooting rules, Psychic Phase rules, Assault rules are not in effect for models that are not in play, because the alternative leads to wholly broken and unplayable game.
Spoiled part 1 says they are removed from play as a casualty if their S, T, or W are reduced to 0. 3 specific circumstances.
The wounds reduced to zero is what happens in regular combat and accounts for the vast majority of cases where models are removed from play as casualties. I guess you didn't realize that shooting attacks and cc attacks are popular ways of reducing a models Wounds to zero.
So when we are talking about a scarab model or the IC being removed as a casualty we are indeed talking about removed from play because we are talking about the wounds being reduced to zero or removal from play due to Stomp or something like that.
Ah well, if RAI isn't a thing because no one is psychic I guess we'll have to play without the Firespear Strike Force and Canoptek Harvest Formation and go through the various phases of the game with dead models and models in Reserves. I can't wait to shoot you with my dead models! Except I can't, as the game stops in the Psychic phase becuase nothing works. Ah well. Are you going to say otherwise? Unless you're psychic you can't say it's obvious! How do you know they didn't intend for the game to not function?
RAI is a thing and I never said otherwise. RAI can only be asserted in patently obvious cases, so the Firespear Strike Force and Canoptek Harvest are meant to actually be played and removed from play really means removed from play.
col_impact wrote: Incorrect. I am not saying that the models that are removed from the table are no longer subject to the rules of the game. I am saying that models that are not in play are not subject to the rules of models in play.
Provide a quote first before just asserting you are correct. Especially when other things have proved you wrong in this situation. For example, the REMINDER in the Purge the Alien Objective rules or the rules of a Codex Space Marine Captain on a Bike allowing for Space Marine Bikes to be Troops. Is the reminder too much and not applicable? Do Space Marine Bikes return to Fast Attack Roles when the Captain dies (a pertinent question for a certain mission)?
You are proceeding on assumptions. Without a quote to support your statements, it is not RAW.
So, to coin your phrase, properly mark your posts HIWPI till you can actually provide a quote supporting this position.
Charistoph wrote: Do Space Marine Bikes return to Fast Attack Roles when the Captain dies (a pertinent question for a certain mission)?
Nope. The rule checks only during army composition.
Spoiler:
Mounted Assault: If a unit with this special rule is chosen as part of a Detachment that contains at least one independent character with the Space Marines Faction equipped with a Space Marine bike, the unit’s Battlefield Role changes to Troops.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Charistoph wrote: For example, the REMINDER in the Purge the Alien Objective rules
Nope. Applies at the end of the game.
Spoiler:
At the end of the game, each player receives 1 Victory Point for each enemy unit that has been completely destroyed. Units that are Falling Back at the end of the game, and units that are not on the board at the end of the game, count as destroyed for the purposes of this mission. Remember that Independent Characters and Dedicated Transports are individual units and award Victory Points if they are destroyed.
col_impact wrote: Incorrect. I am not saying that the models that are removed from the table are no longer subject to the rules of the game. I am saying that models that are not in play are not subject to the rules of models in play.
Provide a quote first before just asserting you are correct.
I don't have to. The alternative you are offering is wholly untenable and leads to an unplayable game and so can be ignored as insubstantial. Unless you want to argue that GW is intentionally producing an unplayable game we can obviously safely take the only tenable path.
Units that are not in play are not subject to the rules of units that are in play unless those rules specifically address units that are not in play.
If that were not the case . . .
Units on the Battlefield could shoot units that are in reserves - Shooting Phase and line of sight rules do not specify units in play.
Units in Reserve could freely walk onto the battlefield on turn 1 (even right on to the Opponent's deployment zone) - Movement Phase ad measurement rules do not specify units in play.
Charistoph wrote: Do Space Marine Bikes return to Fast Attack Roles when the Captain dies (a pertinent question for a certain mission)?
Nope. The rule checks only during army composition.
Spoiler:
Mounted Assault: If a unit with this special rule is chosen as part of a Detachment that contains at least one independent character with the Space Marines Faction equipped with a Space Marine bike, the unit’s Battlefield Role changes to Troops.
And yet, your position would still be otherwise. After all, you're talking about the consequences of permitting rules beyond their scope affecting models, which would include this. Nothing about that rule states this applies constantly. And if the IC with this rule dies, they are no longer part of the detachment as they are removed from play.
Charistoph wrote: For example, the REMINDER in the Purge the Alien Objective rules
Nope. Applies at the end of the game.
Spoiler:
At the end of the game, each player receives 1 Victory Point for each enemy unit that has been completely destroyed. Units that are Falling Back at the end of the game, and units that are not on the board at the end of the game, count as destroyed for the purposes of this mission. Remember that Independent Characters and Dedicated Transports are individual units and award Victory Points if they are destroyed.
Failure on both counts.
The reminder is not about applying it at the end of the game. The reminder is how to consider ICs that have been killed are separate, individual units. Context is important. This reminder would be unnecessary if the IC never leaves their unit after being removed from play. Instead of it being just a reminder, it would be a specific rule to include ICs as separate units when tallying it up.
But it IS a reminder, reminding you that they are individual units when destroyed and not considered part of the unit they died with.
And still no quote from the rulebook to support your position. Failure on three counts on your part.
col_impact wrote: Incorrect. I am not saying that the models that are removed from the table are no longer subject to the rules of the game. I am saying that models that are not in play are not subject to the rules of models in play.
Provide a quote first before just asserting you are correct.
I don't have to. The alternative you are offering is wholly untenable and leads to an unplayable game and so can be ignored as insubstantial. Unless you want to argue that GW is intentionally producing an unplayable game we can obviously safely take the only tenable path.
It is wholly tenable when I you cannot provide permission or requirement to ignore rules just because the model was removed from play. Your strawmen arguments are pointless and your inability to quote properly is irritating.
You need a quote to say a model's rules are ignored when they are removed from play. You do not have permission to dismiss them otherwise.
col_impact wrote: Units that are not in play are not subject to the rules of units that are in play unless those rules specifically address units that are not in play.
We are not talking about a unit being affected by a unit's rule not in play, we're talking about the model's rule which applies to it.
col_impact wrote: Units on the Battlefield could shoot units that are in reserves - Shooting Phase and line of sight rules do not specify units in play.
No, but they do specify Line of Sight and Range. Can you properly identify both for units off the table in all these situations?
col_impact wrote: Units in Reserve could freely walk onto the battlefield on turn 1 (even right on to the Opponent's deployment zone) - Movement Phase ad measurement rules do not specify units in play.
Arriving From Reserves handles that part. It presents a specific set of circumstances in order to move on from Reserves. In addition, how can you define where that unit is actually starting from without permission to do so without using the Arriving From Reserves rules?
Context matters, and sometimes you have to look beyond just a few little words in part of a sentence.
Charistoph wrote: Do Space Marine Bikes return to Fast Attack Roles when the Captain dies (a pertinent question for a certain mission)?
Nope. The rule checks only during army composition.
Spoiler:
Mounted Assault: If a unit with this special rule is chosen as part of a Detachment that contains at least one independent character with the Space Marines Faction equipped with a Space Marine bike, the unit’s Battlefield Role changes to Troops.
And yet, your position would still be otherwise. After all, you're talking about the consequences of permitting rules beyond their scope affecting models, which would include this. Nothing about that rule states this applies constantly. And if the IC with this rule dies, they are no longer part of the detachment as they are removed from play.
Incorrect. Your case is simply not relevant at all to the argument at hand. Bikes are made into troops when the unit is chosen as part of the Detachment. That happens at Army Composition and cannot be undone.
Charistoph wrote: For example, the REMINDER in the Purge the Alien Objective rules
Nope. Applies at the end of the game.
Spoiler:
At the end of the game, each player receives 1 Victory Point for each enemy unit that has been completely destroyed. Units that are Falling Back at the end of the game, and units that are not on the board at the end of the game, count as destroyed for the purposes of this mission. Remember that Independent Characters and Dedicated Transports are individual units and award Victory Points if they are destroyed.
Failure on both counts.
The reminder is not about applying it at the end of the game. The reminder is how to consider ICs that have been killed are separate, individual units. Context is important. This reminder would be unnecessary if the IC never leaves their unit after being removed from play. Instead of it being just a reminder, it would be a specific rule to include ICs as separate units when tallying it up.
But it IS a reminder, reminding you that they are individual units when destroyed and not considered part of the unit they died with.
It only happens at the end of the game and the rule specifically addresses the removed from play zone. You are failing to provide examples that dispute my argument. Try again?
Charistoph wrote: Do Space Marine Bikes return to Fast Attack Roles when the Captain dies (a pertinent question for a certain mission)?
Nope. The rule checks only during army composition.
Spoiler:
Mounted Assault: If a unit with this special rule is chosen as part of a Detachment that contains at least one independent character with the Space Marines Faction equipped with a Space Marine bike, the unit’s Battlefield Role changes to Troops.
And yet, your position would still be otherwise. After all, you're talking about the consequences of permitting rules beyond their scope affecting models, which would include this. Nothing about that rule states this applies constantly. And if the IC with this rule dies, they are no longer part of the detachment as they are removed from play.
Incorrect. Your case is simply not relevant at all to the argument at hand. Bikes are made into troops when the unit is chosen as part of the Detachment. That happens at Army Composition and cannot be undone.
And back to partial quote posting, can't keep your thoughts straight in a post?
Where does it state that it cannot be undone? Quotes to support your assertion are needed.
Charistoph wrote: For example, the REMINDER in the Purge the Alien Objective rules
Nope. Applies at the end of the game.
Spoiler:
At the end of the game, each player receives 1 Victory Point for each enemy unit that has been completely destroyed. Units that are Falling Back at the end of the game, and units that are not on the board at the end of the game, count as destroyed for the purposes of this mission. Remember that Independent Characters and Dedicated Transports are individual units and award Victory Points if they are destroyed.
Failure on both counts.
The reminder is not about applying it at the end of the game. The reminder is how to consider ICs that have been killed are separate, individual units. Context is important. This reminder would be unnecessary if the IC never leaves their unit after being removed from play. Instead of it being just a reminder, it would be a specific rule to include ICs as separate units when tallying it up.
But it IS a reminder, reminding you that they are individual units when destroyed and not considered part of the unit they died with.
It only happens at the end of the game and the rule specifically addresses the removed from play zone. You are failing to provide examples that dispute my argument. Try again?
The TALLY happens at the end of the game. The REMINDER does not. It is reminding you of conditions that prevail during the game that are then accounted for when the tally comes due. The event happened during the game time, not the end of the game. The IC is removed from the unit and counted on their own during the game time. This rule REMINDS you of this at the end.
And still zero quotes to support your actual position.
col_impact wrote: Units on the Battlefield could shoot units that are in reserves - Shooting Phase and line of sight rules do not specify units in play.
No, but they do specify Line of Sight and Range. Can you properly identify both for units off the table in all these situations?
col_impact wrote: Units in Reserve could freely walk onto the battlefield on turn 1 (even right on to the Opponent's deployment zone) - Movement Phase ad measurement rules do not specify units in play.
Arriving From Reserves handles that part. It presents a specific set of circumstances in order to move on from Reserves. In addition, how can you define where that unit is actually starting from without permission to do so without using the Arriving From Reserves rules?
Context matters, and sometimes you have to look beyond just a few little words in part of a sentence.
Nothing prevents you from measuring off the battlefield or finding line of sight off the battlefield. If my unit can see your unit that is in Reserves and my measuring tape calculate it as in range, my unit can shoot at it - unless we consider that it is indeed "not in play" and not subject to the rules of shooting.
Similarly, I can put my units in reserve just outside of the extents battlefield and if they are subject to the movement rules they can freely move onto the battlefield. No rule restricts their permission - unless they are considered 'not in play' and unable to do actions that would require being 'in play'.
I can even place my units in Reserve just off the table adjacent to my opponent's Deployment Zone and then freely move them onto the table on turn one. That is of course unless we consider them actually 'not in play' and not able to use the Movement Phase rules that require a unit to be 'in play'.
And wonderfully, any of my units that are removed from play as casualties and set aside on the table could still participate in shooting. Yes, the dead can shoot! Their wounds being reduced to zero only keeps them in a spot off the battlefield but so long as they can draw line of sight and are in range of units on the battlefield, they can shoot at them. That is of course unless we consider them actually "removed from play" and not subject to the regular rules of play (e.g. Movement, Shooting, Psychic, Assault, etc.).
So again, you are failing to offer a tenable alternative. We can safely discard your read of the rules which breaks the game at its foundations.
The logical consequences of your argument are just plain silly. Try again?
And back to partial quote posting, can't keep your thoughts straight in a post?
Where does it state that it cannot be undone? Quotes to support your assertion are needed.
The rule would require you to revisit the choosing of the unit as part the detachment. You cannot until your next game of course. Why is the logic and grammar of the rule so hard for you?
The TALLY happens at the end of the game. The REMINDER does not. It is reminding you of conditions that prevail during the game that are then accounted for when the tally comes due. The event happened during the game time, not the end of the game. The IC is removed from the unit and counted on their own during the game time. This rule REMINDS you of this at the end.
Per the rule, it all happens at the end of the game. And the reminder is simply a reminder that the IC is an individual unit - which is true at all times in the game whether attached or detached. When the IC attaches to a unit he attaches as an individual unit that counts as part of the host unit for all rules purposes. You lack any rule which specifically addresses the removed from play zone and which makes the IC detach while the IC is part of the scarab unit in the "removed from play" zone and part of the unit for all rules purposes.
The IC is removed from play as part of the scarab unit and remains as such until the scarab unit re-enters play or until the end of the game where he is individuated for the purpose of tallying up kill points.
And still zero quotes to support your actual position.
No need. You haven't offered a viable counter argument. Your argument that leads to a radically broken game can be safely discarded. If models that are 'not in play' are not actually 'not in play', the game breaks.
col_impact wrote: Units on the Battlefield could shoot units that are in reserves - Shooting Phase and line of sight rules do not specify units in play.
No, but they do specify Line of Sight and Range. Can you properly identify both for units off the table in all these situations?
col_impact wrote: Units in Reserve could freely walk onto the battlefield on turn 1 (even right on to the Opponent's deployment zone) - Movement Phase ad measurement rules do not specify units in play.
Arriving From Reserves handles that part. It presents a specific set of circumstances in order to move on from Reserves. In addition, how can you define where that unit is actually starting from without permission to do so without using the Arriving From Reserves rules?
Context matters, and sometimes you have to look beyond just a few little words in part of a sentence.
Nothing prevents you from measuring off the battlefield or finding line of sight off the battlefield. If my unit can see your unit that is in Reserves and my measuring tape calculate it as in range, my unit can shoot at it - unless we consider that it is indeed "not in play" and not subject to the rules of shooting.
Sure there is, at what point do you measure from? 0.1" from the edge? 24" from the edge? Without this, you cannot Move or Shoot.. These scenarios are only a problem if you ignore other rules.
And back to partial quote posting, can't keep your thoughts straight in a post?
Where does it state that it cannot be undone? Quotes to support your assertion are needed.
The rule would require you to revisit the choosing of the unit as part the detachment. You cannot until your next game of course. Why is the logic and grammar of the rule so hard for you?
Not really. The Role would just revert. This wouldn't change anything more for than the Detachment than Unit losses would.
And it is hard to follow the logic and grammer of an unquoted rule. So, again, quote, please.
]
The TALLY happens at the end of the game. The REMINDER does not. It is reminding you of conditions that prevail during the game that are then accounted for when the tally comes due. The event happened during the game time, not the end of the game. The IC is removed from the unit and counted on their own during the game time. This rule REMINDS you of this at the end.
Per the rule, it all happens at the end of the game. And the reminder is simply a reminder that the IC is an individual unit - which is true at all times in the game whether attached or detached. When the IC attaches to a unit he attaches as an individual unit that counts as part of the host unit for all rules purposes. You lack any rule which specifically addresses the removed from play zone and which makes the IC detach while the IC is part of the scarab unit in the "removed from play" zone and part of the unit for all rules purposes.
The IC is removed from play as part of the scarab unit and remains as such until the scarab unit re-enters play or until the end of the game where he is individuated for the purpose of tallying up kill points.
So, according to this interpretation, I can shoot out the IC from the middle of a group since if is its own unit at ALL times. That is something you cannot support with a quote, so not a rule of the game. They are removed from the unit (eventually) when one or both are killed. It is not immediate, but it does happen during the game, not after. No rule states they separate at the end of the game.
And still zero quotes to support your actual position.
No need. You haven't offered a viable counter argument. Your argument that leads to a radically broken game can be safely discarded. If models that are 'not in play' are not actually 'not in play', the game breaks.
I have provided a counter argument from quoted rules. The assertions you have stated in this quoted post have not been supported by the language, much less the context, of any rule quoted so far.
If you think a quote is not needed than you ignoring a Tenet of this forum. If you cannot quote the rules, than you have no rules. If you have no rules, it is HYWPI, nothing else.
Sure there is, at what point do you measure from? 0.1" from the edge? 24" from the edge? Without this, you cannot Move or Shoot.. These scenarios are only a problem if you ignore other rules.
There is no requirement that the measurement for shooting or movement be constrained by the battlefield. You can place your units in Reserve freely anywhere that is not on the battlefield. As long as place your units close enough on the side of the table to the battlefield where they have line of sight and range to units on the battlefield, they can shoot at those units. As long as they are close enough on the side of the table to the battlefield to where the unit can simply finish a move on the battlefield, they can move on to the battlefield. No rules are broken or ignored to do so - only their designation as 'removed from play'. The only thing that would prevent them from moving, shooting, assaulting, etc. is if by being 'removed from play' they are not subject to the rules for units that are 'in play'.
'Removed from play' is indeed 'removed from play'. If you do not treat units that are 'not in play' as 'not in play' the game breaks.
The rule would require you to revisit the choosing of the unit as part the detachment. You cannot until your next game of course. Why is the logic and grammar of the rule so hard for you?
Not really. The Role would just revert. This wouldn't change anything more for than the Detachment than Unit losses would.
And it is hard to follow the logic and grammer of an unquoted rule. So, again, quote, please.
You are failing to adhere to the logic and grammar of the rule itself. The rule itself suffices as the quote.
Spoiler:
Mounted Assault: If a unit with this special rule is chosen as part of a Detachment that contains at least one independent character with the Space Marines Faction equipped with a Space Marine bike, the unit’s Battlefield Role changes to Troops.
Indisputably, the choosing is the trigger for the application of the rule. You choose at army composition. You have to show how the unit during the game is re-chosen as part of the Detachment. So point to the rules which allow you to re-choose army composition during an actual game.
So, according to this interpretation, I can shoot out the IC from the middle of a group since if is its own unit at ALL times. That is something you cannot support with a quote, so not a rule of the game.
You could shoot out the IC from the middle of a group IF you could find a way to circumvent this rule.
Spoiler:
While an Independent Character is part of a unit, he counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes, though he still follows the rules for characters.
But to my knowledge there is no such rule.
The IC is always an individual unit. When he attaches to another unit he 'counts as' part of the unit for all rules purposes but he does not actually become part of the unit. 'Counts as part of ' does not wholly equal 'become part of'. He retains his ALE which permanently has him as an individual unit (and when he attaches he is a unit within a unit - a Mixed unit). That individual unit status is always there, just buried under a 'counts as' rule which restricts access to his individual unit status. His individual unit status enables him to move out of coherency to detach from the host unit and move like a model of his unit type.
The burden is on you to show a rule that drops the IC's ALE. The ALE is always there - it is just that access to that individual unit status is restricted by the 'counts as' clause while the IC is attached to a unit.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Charistoph wrote: I have provided a counter argument from quoted rules. The assertions you have stated in this quoted post have not been supported by the language, much less the context, of any rule quoted so far.
If you think a quote is not needed than you ignoring a Tenet of this forum. If you cannot quote the rules, than you have no rules. If you have no rules, it is HYWPI, nothing else.
As indicated above you have failed to provide a counter argument.
I have freely quoted from the rules in support of my argument.
Spoiler:
If at any point, a model’s Strength, Toughness or Wounds are reduced to 0, it is removed from play as a casualty.
Spoiler:
Models that are removed as casualties are removed from the table and placed to one side.
Spoiler:
The battlefield over which your game is played must be set up before the game begins.
You have failed to provide a tenable counter argument. You have failed to articulate an argument that treats 'removed from play' as 'removed from play'.
The game requires a separation between units that are 'in play' and units that are 'not in play' or it falls apart. The regular basic rules of play (movement, shooting, assault, etc) can only apply to units that are 'in play' or all sorts of silliness ensues like units in reserves shooting units on the battlefield if they are positioned close enough outside of the battlefield to do so.
Indisputably, when the IC dies as part of the unit of scarabs he is removed from play as a casualty and as part of the unit of scarabs. The IC rules do not consider IC death as a trigger to detach from the host unit so he is removed from play as part of that unit. Since he is 'not in play' the regular rules of units 'in play' do not affect him. Regular rules of play have no affect on the 'not in play' zone unless they specifically address that zone.
If the IC were still in play and the rest of the scarabs died around him he would detach. However, the IC is not still in play and no rule is specifically addressing him in the 'removed from play' zone that would detach him.
And once again it's good to point out that the discussion continues to fixate on the IC issue.
So I guess you all have conceded that a unit of 12 scarabs will return to play as unit of 12 scarabs?
It seems pretty clear and unequivocal that RAW supports that.
The unit of 12 is removed from play as part of a unit that is "completely destroyed" (ie wiped out) and the rule gives that unit permission to return to play and does not specify "starting" or "original".
Sure there is, at what point do you measure from? 0.1" from the edge? 24" from the edge? Without this, you cannot Move or Shoot.. These scenarios are only a problem if you ignore other rules.
There is no requirement that the measurement for shooting or movement be constrained by the battlefield. You can place your units in Reserve freely anywhere that is not on the battlefield. As long as place your units close enough on the side of the table to the battlefield where they have line of sight and range to units on the battlefield, they can shoot at those units. As long as they are close enough on the side of the table to the battlefield to where the unit can simply finish a move on the battlefield, they can move on to the battlefield. No rules are broken or ignored to do so - only their designation as 'removed from play'. The only thing that would prevent them from moving, shooting, assaulting, etc. is if by being 'removed from play' they are not subject to the rules for units that are 'in play'.
'Removed from play' is indeed 'removed from play'. If you do not treat units that are 'not in play' as 'not in play' the game breaks.
Incorrect. They are measured from the model. This is a standard rule for both shooting and movement. Models not on the battlefield do not have a point of reference to be measuring from, or at least, we do not have permission to do that for something in Reserves. So that answers your unbelievable statement about no requirement.
col_impact wrote: The rule would require you to revisit the choosing of the unit as part the detachment. You cannot until your next game of course. Why is the logic and grammar of the rule so hard for you?
Not really. The Role would just revert. This wouldn't change anything more for than the Detachment than Unit losses would.
And it is hard to follow the logic and grammer of an unquoted rule. So, again, quote, please.
You are failing to adhere to the logic and grammar of the rule itself. The rule itself suffices as the quote.
Spoiler:
Mounted Assault: If a unit with this special rule is chosen as part of a Detachment that contains at least one independent character with the Space Marines Faction equipped with a Space Marine bike, the unit’s Battlefield Role changes to Troops.
Indisputably, the choosing is the trigger for the application of the rule. You choose at army composition. You have to show how the unit during the game is re-chosen as part of the Detachment. So point to the rules which allow you to re-choose army composition during an actual game.
If the IC dies, he is no longer in the detachment any more than if he was in a unit. Or are we ignoring how IC rules operate? And remember your position, "a model cannot be affected by another model's rule if they are not in play". The IC has been removed from play, so cannot be affecting other models with its rules, and that rule is not a detachment rule, but singular to those ICs which have it.
Not that it really matters since what we are discussing a model's own rules, not another's.
So, according to this interpretation, I can shoot out the IC from the middle of a group since if is its own unit at ALL times. That is something you cannot support with a quote, so not a rule of the game.
You could shoot out the IC from the middle of a group IF you could find a way to circumvent this rule.
Spoiler:
While an Independent Character is part of a unit, he counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes, though he still follows the rules for characters.
But to my knowledge there is no such rule.
That was rather my point that you were ignoring.
col_impact wrote: The IC is always an individual unit. When he attaches to another unit he 'counts as' part of the unit for all rules purposes but he does not actually become part of the unit. 'Counts as part of ' does not wholly equal 'become part of'. He retains his ALE which permanently has him as an individual unit (and when he attaches he is a unit within a unit - a Mixed unit). That individual unit status is always there, just buried under a 'counts as' rule which restricts access to his individual unit status. His individual unit status enables him to move out of coherency to detach from the host unit and move like a model of his unit type.
The burden is on you to show a rule that drops the IC's ALE. The ALE is always there - it is just that access to that individual unit status is restricted by the 'counts as' clause while the IC is attached to a unit.
I never stated that he drops his ALE, I do not know why you are assuming this at all. I was trying to remind you of how the IC rules work.
When joined to the unit he counts as part of the unit for ALL rules purposes. These means that any action made by, referencing, or upon the unit in question includes the IC. Objective rules are part of ALL the rules for their purposes.
So either the IC leaves the unit (eventually) when it is killed, and so is allowed to be referenced as an individual unit when measuring Kill Point Objectives (like the REMINDER tells us), OR the IC cannot leave the unit when he is destroyed with the unit and so is never allowed to be an individual unit.
Since the Kill Point Objective specifically points the former as being the case to such a degree as to provide a reminder, I'm going to continue with the perspective that we follow what the IC rules state that it leaves the unit when the unit is killed around it or removed from coherency with the unit, instead of some arbitrary rule about model rules not being in play that you will not (and no doubt, can not) quote.
Charistoph wrote: I have provided a counter argument from quoted rules. The assertions you have stated in this quoted post have not been supported by the language, much less the context, of any rule quoted so far.
If you think a quote is not needed than you ignoring a Tenet of this forum. If you cannot quote the rules, than you have no rules. If you have no rules, it is HYWPI, nothing else.
As indicated above you have failed to provide a counter argument.
I have freely quoted from the rules in support of my argument.
Spoiler:
If at any point, a model’s Strength, Toughness or Wounds are reduced to 0, it is removed from play as a casualty.
Spoiler:
Models that are removed as casualties are removed from the table and placed to one side.
Spoiler:
The battlefield over which your game is played must be set up before the game begins.
You have failed to provide a tenable counter argument. You have failed to articulate an argument that treats 'removed from play' as 'removed from play'.
What we disagree on is the extent "removed from play" involves. But then, you always do have a problem following my logic path, so that is not new.
You believe that all the rules a model carries are ignored when the model is "removed from play". You have quoted NOTHING on this point, even after repeated requests. The fact that such a rule does not exist may be the reason why. The arguments you presented above are just about what causes a model to be considered removed from play, which is someone else's argument that I never touched.
col_impact wrote: The game requires a separation between units that are 'in play' and units that are 'not in play' or it falls apart. The regular basic rules of play (movement, shooting, assault, etc) can only apply to units that are 'in play' or all sorts of silliness ensues like units in reserves shooting units on the battlefield if they are positioned close enough outside of the battlefield to do so.
True, but that doesn't mean his rules go away or are removed from play. In most cases, they require the model to be "in play", but the IC rule in question, does not. Indeed, being removed from play is sufficient to trigger at least one, eventually.
col_impact wrote: Indisputably, when the IC dies as part of the unit of scarabs he is removed from play as a casualty and as part of the unit of scarabs. The IC rules do not consider IC death as a trigger to detach from the host unit so he is removed from play as part of that unit. Since he is 'not in play' the regular rules of units 'in play' do not affect him. Regular rules of play have no affect on the 'not in play' zone unless they specifically address that zone.
Again, you still need to quote on that one. Remember what the conditions for an IC to leave a unit are. While none speak of being removed from play, they do not EXCLUDE them, either. You do not have permission to ignore this portion of the rule, just because the model was removed.
And if it is separated from the unit at the end of the game when the kill is done, it will be at the appropriate time of when it happened.
Unless you can point out how an IC that is removed from play is still in coherency? Or if the IC is killed off with his joined unit did not indeed experience "all other models in that unit are killed"
col_impact wrote: If the IC were still in play and the rest of the scarabs died around him he would detach. However, the IC is not still in play and no rule is specifically addressing him in the 'removed from play' zone that would detach him.
Still no quote on this...
col_impact wrote: And once again it's good to point out that the discussion continues to fixate on the IC issue.
So I guess you all have conceded that a unit of 12 scarabs will return to play as unit of 12 scarabs?
It seems pretty clear and unequivocal that RAW supports that.
The unit of 12 is removed from play as part of a unit that is "completely destroyed" (ie wiped out) and the rule gives that unit permission to return to play and does not specify "starting" or "original".
I might have bothered to address it later, but your insistence on a non-existent rule is distracting. It has not been one I brought up or addressed, so it has nothing to do with conceding, just focusing on the primary concern.
But the simple fact is that it is not addressed, either way. It just says the unit returns, neither as it started, size at the beginning of the Phase it was removed, nor the size it grew to later in the case of the Scarabs.
In most other cases of similar rules, if we may use them as precedence, it was as the unit existed when deployment began. It is a good precedence to stick with and the most clear. Incidentally, this precedence would also address this concern about ICs being resurrected as well, as their return conditions consider the unit from a time before an IC can join it.
col_impact wrote: And once again it's good to point out that the discussion continues to fixate on the IC issue.
So I guess you all have conceded that a unit of 12 scarabs will return to play as unit of 12 scarabs?
It seems pretty clear and unequivocal that RAW supports that.
The unit of 12 is removed from play as part of a unit that is "completely destroyed" (ie wiped out) and the rule gives that unit permission to return to play and does not specify "starting" or "original".
You continue to try to divert from the issue at hand. Your losing the IC argument and trying to switch gears to another argument. You still have nothing that counteracts the IC rule.
Sure there is, at what point do you measure from? 0.1" from the edge? 24" from the edge? Without this, you cannot Move or Shoot.. These scenarios are only a problem if you ignore other rules.
There is no requirement that the measurement for shooting or movement be constrained by the battlefield. You can place your units in Reserve freely anywhere that is not on the battlefield. As long as place your units close enough on the side of the table to the battlefield where they have line of sight and range to units on the battlefield, they can shoot at those units. As long as they are close enough on the side of the table to the battlefield to where the unit can simply finish a move on the battlefield, they can move on to the battlefield. No rules are broken or ignored to do so - only their designation as 'removed from play'. The only thing that would prevent them from moving, shooting, assaulting, etc. is if by being 'removed from play' they are not subject to the rules for units that are 'in play'.
'Removed from play' is indeed 'removed from play'. If you do not treat units that are 'not in play' as 'not in play' the game breaks.
Incorrect. They are measured from the model. This is a standard rule for both shooting and movement. Models not on the battlefield do not have a point of reference to be measuring from, or at least, we do not have permission to do that for something in Reserves. So that answers your unbelievable statement about no requirement.
Again, context of ALL the rules matters.
You need to refresh yourself with the rules. If you are allowing units 'not in play' to be subject to the rules of units 'in play' (movement, shooting, assault, etc.) then you have a big problem. Units in Reserve are still units and they are placed somewhere that is simply not on the battlefield. Units that are removed from play as casualties are placed on the side of the table per the rules. If I can measure, draw line of sight, and/or be in range of units on the Battlefield then those units 'not in play' can interact with the Battlefield. The Reserve units can shoot and move onto the Battlefield and the 'removed from play' units can shoot onto the Battlefield.Measuring distances and moving units do not specify only units 'in play' and do not specify only 'on the battlefield' so those rules can freely affect units in Reserve and units in the 'removed from play' zone.
Unless there is some distinction drawn between units 'in play' and units 'not in play', the game breaks since stuff in Reserves and removed from the game interact with units 'in play'.
The regular rules for Movement, Shooting, Assault, etc. can only apply to units 'in play' and can not apply to units 'not in play'. Otherwise, the game breaks plain and simple.
So your line of reasoning which leads to a profoundly broken game is simply discarded. Try again?
col_impact wrote: And once again it's good to point out that the discussion continues to fixate on the IC issue.
So I guess you all have conceded that a unit of 12 scarabs will return to play as unit of 12 scarabs?
It seems pretty clear and unequivocal that RAW supports that.
The unit of 12 is removed from play as part of a unit that is "completely destroyed" (ie wiped out) and the rule gives that unit permission to return to play and does not specify "starting" or "original".
You continue to try to divert from the issue at hand. Your losing the IC argument and trying to switch gears to another argument. You still have nothing that counteracts the IC rule.
Not diverting. Just making sure issue #1 isn't forgotten. Feel free to provide a counter-argument to my RAW argument for the unit of 12 scarabs.
If the IC dies, he is no longer in the detachment any more than if he was in a unit. Or are we ignoring how IC rules operate? And remember your position, "a model cannot be affected by another model's rule if they are not in play". The IC has been removed from play, so cannot be affecting other models with its rules, and that rule is not a detachment rule, but singular to those ICs which have it.
Not that it really matters since what we are discussing a model's own rules, not another's.
You need to read the rule. The rule gets triggered upon choosing the unit for a Detachment that has a Bike Captain. That choice is made in army composition. You do not revisit that choice in the game. So until your next army composition task the army list is set with Bikes as Troops per the rule.
Read the rule and adhere to the language and logic of the rule.
I never stated that he drops his ALE, I do not know why you are assuming this at all. I was trying to remind you of how the IC rules work.
When joined to the unit he counts as part of the unit for ALL rules purposes. These means that any action made by, referencing, or upon the unit in question includes the IC. Objective rules are part of ALL the rules for their purposes.
So either the IC leaves the unit (eventually) when it is killed, and so is allowed to be referenced as an individual unit when measuring Kill Point Objectives (like the REMINDER tells us), OR the IC cannot leave the unit when he is destroyed with the unit and so is never allowed to be an individual unit.
Since the Kill Point Objective specifically points the former as being the case to such a degree as to provide a reminder, I'm going to continue with the perspective that we follow what the IC rules state that it leaves the unit when the unit is killed around it or removed from coherency with the unit, instead of some arbitrary rule about model rules not being in play that you will not (and no doubt, can not) quote.
Whether or not an IC is attached or detached to a unit, the IC is still an individual unit that is merely subject to a rule that counts him as part of a unit. At no point does he become part of the unit nor does he lose his ALE which insures he is always an individual unit. The 'counts as' rule does not remove his individual unit status, it just restricts the IC and enforces that the rules treat him as if he were part of the unit (while technically not wholly part of the unit)
The Purge the Alien rule merely points out what is always the case anyway - that the IC is an individual unit. That rule has no problem being triggered whether the IC is considered attached or detached to a unit in the removed from play zone.
So your Purge the Alien rule can provide nothing in the way of guidance about whether the IC auto-detaches in the 'remove from play' zone.
col_impact wrote: The game requires a separation between units that are 'in play' and units that are 'not in play' or it falls apart. The regular basic rules of play (movement, shooting, assault, etc) can only apply to units that are 'in play' or all sorts of silliness ensues like units in reserves shooting units on the battlefield if they are positioned close enough outside of the battlefield to do so.
True, but that doesn't mean his rules go away or are removed from play. In most cases, they require the model to be "in play", but the IC rule in question, does not. Indeed, being removed from play is sufficient to trigger at least one, eventually.
Incorrect. You require a rule that addresses the specific 'removed from play' zone. The rules of regular play do not affect the 'removed from play' zone.
Again, you still need to quote on that one. Remember what the conditions for an IC to leave a unit are. While none speak of being removed from play, they do not EXCLUDE them, either. You do not have permission to ignore this portion of the rule, just because the model was removed.
And if it is separated from the unit at the end of the game when the kill is done, it will be at the appropriate time of when it happened.
Unless you can point out how an IC that is removed from play is still in coherency? Or if the IC is killed off with his joined unit did not indeed experience "all other models in that unit are killed"
The IC is not in play and so not subject to the rules which involve units that are 'in play'. For a rule to affect the IC in the 'remove from play' zone the rule must specifically affect him in that zone. 'Removed from play' is 'removed from play' and a rule that would affect the 'remove from play' zone must specifically be empowered to do so.
Otherwise you have a situation where the rules of play (movement, shooting, assault, etc.) apply to units 'not in play' which leads to units in Reserves and units that are dead able to interact with the Battlefield. Any line of reasoning down this path can be safely discarded.
If an Independent Character joins a unit, and all other models in that unit are killed, he again becomes a unit of one model at the start of the following phase.
col_impact wrote: If the IC were still in play and the rest of the scarabs died around him he would detach. However, the IC is not still in play and no rule is specifically addressing him in the 'removed from play' zone that would detach him.
Still no quote on this...
No quote needed. The alternative where the rules of units 'in play' freely apply to units 'not in play' leads to broken and thoroughly unplayable game. Any line of argumentation down this path can be safely discarded.
col_impact wrote: And once again it's good to point out that the discussion continues to fixate on the IC issue.
So I guess you all have conceded that a unit of 12 scarabs will return to play as unit of 12 scarabs?
It seems pretty clear and unequivocal that RAW supports that.
The unit of 12 is removed from play as part of a unit that is "completely destroyed" (ie wiped out) and the rule gives that unit permission to return to play and does not specify "starting" or "original".
I might have bothered to address it later, but your insistence on a non-existent rule is distracting. It has not been one I brought up or addressed, so it has nothing to do with conceding, just focusing on the primary concern.
But the simple fact is that it is not addressed, either way. It just says the unit returns, neither as it started, size at the beginning of the Phase it was removed, nor the size it grew to later in the case of the Scarabs.
In most other cases of similar rules, if we may use them as precedence, it was as the unit existed when deployment began. It is a good precedence to stick with and the most clear. Incidentally, this precedence would also address this concern about ICs being resurrected as well, as their return conditions consider the unit from a time before an IC can join it.
RAW is clear. There is a pile of 12 scarab models for a scarab unit on the side of the table when the unit is designated 'completely destroyed' and the 'From the Sands, we rise' rule is triggered. No rule asserts "original" or "starting".
There is literally no justification for anything but 12 scarab models to re-enter play.
Your appeal to precedence is laughable and shows that you will stoop to sophistry rather than simply admit you cannot counter my RAW argument. Let's stick with sorting out RAW and if you are unhappy with RAW then feel free to house rule it to your heart's content. No one is forcing you to play by RAW. I am just showing you what is RAW on the issue.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Fragile wrote: Nothing you have said has countered the rule.
Spoiler:
If an Independent Character joins a unit, and all other models in that unit are killed, he again becomes a unit of one model at the start of the following phase.
The IC is 'not in play' at the start of the following phase. If he were in play that rule would definitely affect him. But alas, he is not 'in play'. The rule must specifically address the 'removed from play' zone to affect units 'not in play'. As has been shown, the game breaks if regular rules of play are free to apply to units that are 'not in play' so the game requires that rules specifically address the 'removed from play' zone to be empowered to affect the 'removed from play' zone.
Charistoph wrote: Incorrect. They are measured from the model. This is a standard rule for both shooting and movement. Models not on the battlefield do not have a point of reference to be measuring from, or at least, we do not have permission to do that for something in Reserves. So that answers your unbelievable statement about no requirement.
Again, context of ALL the rules matters.
You need to refresh yourself with the rules. If you are allowing units 'not in play' to be subject to the rules of units 'in play' (movement, shooting, assault, etc.) then you have a big problem. Units in Reserve are still units and they are placed somewhere that is simply not on the battlefield. Units that are removed from play as casualties are placed on the side of the table per the rules. If I can measure, draw line of sight, and/or be in range of units on the Battlefield then those units 'not in play' can interact with the Battlefield. The Reserve units can shoot and move onto the Battlefield and the 'removed from play' units can shoot onto the Battlefield.Measuring distances and moving units do not specify only units 'in play' and do not specify only 'on the battlefield' so those rules can freely affect units in Reserve and units in the 'removed from play' zone.
Unless there is some distinction drawn between units 'in play' and units 'not in play', the game breaks since stuff in Reserves and removed from the game interact with units 'in play'.
The regular rules for Movement, Shooting, Assault, etc. can only apply to units 'in play' and can not apply to units 'not in play'. Otherwise, the game breaks plain and simple.
So your line of reasoning which leads to a profoundly broken game is simply discarded. Try again?
So am I incorrect that measuring for shooting and movement is made from the model? Am I incorrect that a unit in Reserves or removed from play is not provided any reference points to measure from? Am I incorrect that once a unit is in Reserves the only actions that are permitted for the unit are arranging for their Reserves Arrival and the first time any measurement for them is made is when they are Moving On From Reserves?
I'm sorry without any rules regarding "in play", your entire line of reasoning regarding this is pointless and also breaks the game.
Quote the rule that says a model's rules that is removed from play are no longer usable, or concede.
If the IC dies, he is no longer in the detachment any more than if he was in a unit. Or are we ignoring how IC rules operate? And remember your position, "a model cannot be affected by another model's rule if they are not in play". The IC has been removed from play, so cannot be affecting other models with its rules, and that rule is not a detachment rule, but singular to those ICs which have it.
Not that it really matters since what we are discussing a model's own rules, not another's.
You need to read the rule. The rule gets triggered upon choosing the unit for a Detachment that has a Bike Captain. That choice is made in army composition. You do not revisit that choice in the game. So until your next army composition task the army list is set with Bikes as Troops per the rule.
Read the rule and adhere to the language and logic of the rule.
But by doing so, you do not adhere to your unquoted rule. The ICs rules can no longer affect other models since it is removed from play. Isn't that what you keep asserting? The rule does not state that this continues when the IC is not in play, after all.
So, choose which you will break, your made-up rule, or the IC's. I will choose to break a rule not in the rulebook and only in your head.
I never stated that he drops his ALE, I do not know why you are assuming this at all. I was trying to remind you of how the IC rules work.
When joined to the unit he counts as part of the unit for ALL rules purposes. These means that any action made by, referencing, or upon the unit in question includes the IC. Objective rules are part of ALL the rules for their purposes.
So either the IC leaves the unit (eventually) when it is killed, and so is allowed to be referenced as an individual unit when measuring Kill Point Objectives (like the REMINDER tells us), OR the IC cannot leave the unit when he is destroyed with the unit and so is never allowed to be an individual unit.
Since the Kill Point Objective specifically points the former as being the case to such a degree as to provide a reminder, I'm going to continue with the perspective that we follow what the IC rules state that it leaves the unit when the unit is killed around it or removed from coherency with the unit, instead of some arbitrary rule about model rules not being in play that you will not (and no doubt, can not) quote.
Whether or not an IC is attached or detached to a unit, the IC is still an individual unit that is merely subject to a rule that counts him as part of a unit. At no point does he become part of the unit nor does he lose his ALE which insures he is always an individual unit. The 'counts as' rule does not remove his individual unit status, it just restricts the IC and enforces that the rules treat him as if he were part of the unit (while technically not wholly part of the unit)
The Purge the Alien rule merely points out what is always the case anyway - that the IC is an individual unit. That rule has no problem being triggered whether the IC is considered attached or detached to a unit in the removed from play zone.
So your Purge the Alien rule can provide nothing in the way of guidance about whether the IC auto-detaches in the 'remove from play' zone.
Sorry, try again?
Still not addressing the issue. The IC's rule regarding counting as part of the unit FOR ALL RULES PURPOSES would still apply at the end of the game since they are not allowed to leave the unit. If they can be counted as separate while joined to the unit when it is destroyed for Objective Points, they can be counted as separate in other areas, too, including ti coming back from the dead.
But again, maybe this logic path is too strait for you?
True, but that doesn't mean his rules go away or are removed from play. In most cases, they require the model to be "in play", but the IC rule in question, does not. Indeed, being removed from play is sufficient to trigger at least one, eventually.
Incorrect. You require a rule that addresses the specific 'removed from play' zone. The rules of regular play do not affect the 'removed from play' zone.
Why? What rule states this? It's been asked for half a dozen times or more by now. Since you are not delivering, I will consider you conceding on this point and just kicking pricks to argue.
Again, you still need to quote on that one. Remember what the conditions for an IC to leave a unit are. While none speak of being removed from play, they do not EXCLUDE them, either. You do not have permission to ignore this portion of the rule, just because the model was removed.
And if it is separated from the unit at the end of the game when the kill is done, it will be at the appropriate time of when it happened.
Unless you can point out how an IC that is removed from play is still in coherency? Or if the IC is killed off with his joined unit did not indeed experience "all other models in that unit are killed"
The IC is not in play and so not subject to the rules which involve units that are 'in play'. For a rule to affect the IC in the 'remove from play' zone the rule must specifically affect him in that zone. 'Removed from play' is 'removed from play' and a rule that would affect the 'remove from play' zone must specifically be empowered to do so.
You have not demonstrated anything regarding the bounds of "in play" or "removed from play" in the rulebook and how a rule is limited by such. Your assertion is dross without support. Since you have yet to support it from the rulebook, it does not exist so is not something I have to consider in this argument.
Try and provide something from the rulebook to actually support your claims from now on.
col_impact wrote:Otherwise you have a situation where the rules of play (movement, shooting, assault, etc.) apply to units 'not in play' which leads to units in Reserves and units that are dead able to interact with the Battlefield. Any line of reasoning down this path can be safely discarded.
Incorrect as I already addressed. Just because you think it breaks it does not mean it actually breaks. After all, you need points of reference and permission to do certain things, none of which apply in your scenarios.
col_impact wrote: If the IC were still in play and the rest of the scarabs died around him he would detach. However, the IC is not still in play and no rule is specifically addressing him in the 'removed from play' zone that would detach him.
Still no quote on this...
No quote needed. The alternative where the rules of units 'in play' freely apply to units 'not in play' leads to broken and thoroughly unplayable game. Any line of argumentation down this path can be safely discarded.
Yes, quote needed. Your simple assertion is not evidence any more than "it doesn't say I can't". So I can safely start discarding your unsupported assertions from now on that continue down this path, by your own standards.
col_impact wrote: And once again it's good to point out that the discussion continues to fixate on the IC issue.
So I guess you all have conceded that a unit of 12 scarabs will return to play as unit of 12 scarabs?
It seems pretty clear and unequivocal that RAW supports that.
The unit of 12 is removed from play as part of a unit that is "completely destroyed" (ie wiped out) and the rule gives that unit permission to return to play and does not specify "starting" or "original".
I might have bothered to address it later, but your insistence on a non-existent rule is distracting. It has not been one I brought up or addressed, so it has nothing to do with conceding, just focusing on the primary concern.
But the simple fact is that it is not addressed, either way. It just says the unit returns, neither as it started, size at the beginning of the Phase it was removed, nor the size it grew to later in the case of the Scarabs.
In most other cases of similar rules, if we may use them as precedence, it was as the unit existed when deployment began. It is a good precedence to stick with and the most clear. Incidentally, this precedence would also address this concern about ICs being resurrected as well, as their return conditions consider the unit from a time before an IC can join it.
RAW is clear. There is a pile of 12 scarab models for a scarab unit on the side of the table when the unit is designated 'completely destroyed' and the 'From the Sands, we rise' rule is triggered. No rule asserts "original" or "starting".
Actually it is not clear. It does not address size at all, whether the original size, size of the unit when it dies, the size it was at the beginning of the turn, or the size it was at the beginning of the Phase it died.
If it was clear that it is based on what was dead, it would say that. If it was clear that it was how large the unit got, it would say that. If it was clear that it was based on how large the unit was when it would be wiped out, it would say that.
But all it says is that "it can return to the battlefield at the start of your next turn." That could easily mean how many models are dead to as much as how many are still left in play when it died, which would be none (and a stupid interpretation).
col_impact wrote:There is literally no justification for anything but 12 scarab models to re-enter play.
Also untrue if we go by the precedence for similar rules that allow a destroyed unit to be returned in to play.
For reference, the Tyranid Endless Swarm Formation from Leviathan II with the Endless Swarm rule:
Spoiler:
Each time a Hormagaunt or Termagant Brood from this Formation is completely destroyed, roll a D6: on a 4+ you can immediately place a new unit into Ongoing Reserve that is identical in terms of the original number of models, weapons and upgrades to the unit that was just destroyed. These new units count as being part of the original Formation, so roll a D6 as described above if they are subsequently destroyed. Victory points are awarded as normal for new units in this Formation that have been completely destroyed.
And from the Imperial Guard 5th Edition codex, Commander Chenkov's Send In the Next Wave:
Spoiler:
Any unit with this special rule that is removed from play may be brought back into play at the beginning of the controlling player's next turn. The new unit moves onto the board from the player's board edge. The unit arrives with as many models and exactly the same armaments as its full strength predecessor - it is treated as a new, identical unit that has just arrived from reserve.
col_impact wrote:Your appeal to precedence is laughable and shows that you will stoop to sophistry rather than simply admit you cannot counter my RAW argument. Let's stick with sorting out RAW and if you are unhappy with RAW then feel free to house rule it to your heart's content. No one is forcing you to play by RAW. I am just showing you what is RAW on the issue.
I make no appeal to precedence, but to use it since we have literally nothing else to go on. No RAW means we generate House Rules. Using other rules which DO have something else to go on to generate House Rules with is a practice I thought you might be familiar with. That is why I invoked precedence.
You should actually try and understand another person's argument before you attempt to address it. It makes things go a lot smoother.
So am I incorrect that measuring for shooting and movement is made from the model? Am I incorrect that a unit in Reserves or removed from play is not provided any reference points to measure from? Am I incorrect that once a unit is in Reserves the only actions that are permitted for the unit are arranging for their Reserves Arrival and the first time any measurement for them is made is when they are Moving On From Reserves?
I'm sorry without any rules regarding "in play", your entire line of reasoning regarding this is pointless and also breaks the game.
Quote the rule that says a model's rules that is removed from play are no longer usable, or concede.
Measurements for shooting and movement are indeed made from the model. Units in Reserve and units removed from play as casualties are comprised of models. The measurement rules do not require them to be on the battlefield and players are free to put units in Reserve and units removed from play as casualties on the side of the table.
So you measure from the units on the side of the table to the units on the battlefield and start firing away. Shooting and line of sight do not specify units 'in play' so units in reserve and unit that are removed from play as casualties are free to join in, UNLESS they are being excluded from the action as 'not in play'.
If the units in reserve and the units that have been removed play as a casualty are not excluded from the rules of units 'in play' then they will be free to move, shoot, assault, etc. and interact with the units on the battlefield.
If the units in reserves and the units that have been removed play as a casualty are excluded from the rules of units 'in play' then they will be in a sort of stasis waiting for permission to arrive from Reserves and then moving on from Reserve.
So how do we handle Units in Reserve and units removed from play as casualties? Are units in Reserve free to act as if they were 'in play' or are they 'not in play' until given permission to be 'in play'.
Obviously, units in Reserve and units removed from play as casualties are 'removed from play' and this means they only get to do things when they are brought 'in play' by rules that specifically address them and enable them.
Even though the rules of movement, shooting, assaulting, etc. do not specifically exclude units in Reserve and units removed from play as casualties, the rules of movement, shooting, assaulting, etc. are not to applicable to units 'not in play'. To do otherwise and allow units 'not in play' the same rules as units 'in play' breaks the game and violates any contextual sense of 'removed from play'.
A model that is 'removed from the game' cannot interact with the 'game' until it re-enters 'play'. I am curious what definition of 'play' you are using if not 'game play' and what definition of "removed from the game" if not actually removing the model from the game, since this point I am making is by definition and exceedingly obvious and not one I would expect anyone to struggle with.
So a model with rules that is 'removed from the game' is rendered totally inert and cannot interact with 'game play' until it is permitted to re-enter 'play'.
Otherwise I can place my dead HQs with their +1 RP bubbles along the side of the table edge to give my units on the battlefield a nice boost from the grave.
Jeeze, Charistophe, some of the stuff you come up with. 'Removed from the game' means 'removed from the game'. You don't get to play with your dead HQ anymore. He is out of the game!
But by doing so, you do not adhere to your unquoted rule. The ICs rules can no longer affect other models since it is removed from play. Isn't that what you keep asserting? The rule does not state that this continues when the IC is not in play, after all.
So, choose which you will break, your made-up rule, or the IC's. I will choose to break a rule not in the rulebook and only in your head.
Once again the rule is granted upon army composition and only requires the IC be present when building the army. Your continued discussion of this case only shows that you cannot read or follow logic.
There is absolutely no further need to discuss this case because it is wholly irrelevant to the discussion at hand. However, your struggle to understand the logic of the rule is interesting.
Still not addressing the issue. The IC's rule regarding counting as part of the unit FOR ALL RULES PURPOSES would still apply at the end of the game since they are not allowed to leave the unit. If they can be counted as separate while joined to the unit when it is destroyed for Objective Points, they can be counted as separate in other areas, too, including ti coming back from the dead.
But again, maybe this logic path is too strait for you?
As stated already, the IC is an individual unit at all times and the Purge the Alien reminder is merely a statement of that ALE fact - that in whatever context the IC is always an individual unit. In the same way that a Captain on foot does not magically get a Jump pack when joined to a Jump unit, the Captain gets scored based on his ALE which is individual unit. The Purge the Alien rule directly references the ALE.
True, but that doesn't mean his rules go away or are removed from play. In most cases, they require the model to be "in play", but the IC rule in question, does not. Indeed, being removed from play is sufficient to trigger at least one, eventually.
Incorrect. You require a rule that addresses the specific 'removed from play' zone. The rules of regular play do not affect the 'removed from play' zone.
Why? What rule states this? It's been asked for half a dozen times or more by now. Since you are not delivering, I will consider you conceding on this point and just kicking pricks to argue.
"Removed from play" is a quote that states it rather bluntly and directly and you keep trying to dance around that straightforward rule declaration and assert the opposite that the model is still "in play". When a model is "removed from play" you do not get to "play" anymore with that model, period, unless a rule specifically allows that model to re-enter "play".
If you do not distinguish between "not in play" and "in play" the game breaks. The dead can shoot from the side of the table. Reserve units can move freely onto the battlefield. Your troops on the battlefield can shoot units in Reserve. The Apocalypse!
"Removed from the game" and "not in play" means that model no longer gets to play. Again, you seem to indicate a problem with reading and logic.
You have not demonstrated anything regarding the bounds of "in play" or "removed from play" in the rulebook and how a rule is limited by such. Your assertion is dross without support. Since you have yet to support it from the rulebook, it does not exist so is not something I have to consider in this argument.
Try and provide something from the rulebook to actually support your claims from now on.
"Removed from the game" means you don't get to play with the model anymore, period. No rules, nothing. Its removed from game play and has zero impact on the game until it gets specific permission to re-enter the game or factors into specific things like scoring at the End of the Game.
"Removed from the game" is a rule and you keep ignoring it.
My argument however respects what "removed from the game" means.
Until your argument treats a model that is "removed from the game" as indeed "removed from the game" it is wholly invalid and in direct violation of plainly stated rules in the BRB.
Incorrect as I already addressed. Just because you think it breaks it does not mean it actually breaks. After all, you need points of reference and permission to do certain things, none of which apply in your scenarios.
If units in Reserve and units removed from the game as casualties are free to act as if they are 'in play' the game most assuredly breaks. Movement, shooting, and assaulting could all be done by units 'not in play' on the side of the table UNLESS they are excluded from being able to do so since they are either 'not in play' or 'removed from the game'
It is truly amazing that you wholly ignore the straightforward "removed from the game" rule declaration and carry on in your argument as if it doesn't apply to you. Utter sophistry.
col_impact wrote: And once again it's good to point out that the discussion continues to fixate on the IC issue.
So I guess you all have conceded that a unit of 12 scarabs will return to play as unit of 12 scarabs?
It seems pretty clear and unequivocal that RAW supports that.
The unit of 12 is removed from play as part of a unit that is "completely destroyed" (ie wiped out) and the rule gives that unit permission to return to play and does not specify "starting" or "original".
I might have bothered to address it later, but your insistence on a non-existent rule is distracting. It has not been one I brought up or addressed, so it has nothing to do with conceding, just focusing on the primary concern.
But the simple fact is that it is not addressed, either way. It just says the unit returns, neither as it started, size at the beginning of the Phase it was removed, nor the size it grew to later in the case of the Scarabs.
In most other cases of similar rules, if we may use them as precedence, it was as the unit existed when deployment began. It is a good precedence to stick with and the most clear. Incidentally, this precedence would also address this concern about ICs being resurrected as well, as their return conditions consider the unit from a time before an IC can join it.
RAW is clear. There is a pile of 12 scarab models for a scarab unit on the side of the table when the unit is designated 'completely destroyed' and the 'From the Sands, we rise' rule is triggered. No rule asserts "original" or "starting".
Actually it is not clear. It does not address size at all, whether the original size, size of the unit when it dies, the size it was at the beginning of the turn, or the size it was at the beginning of the Phase it died.
If it was clear that it is based on what was dead, it would say that. If it was clear that it was how large the unit got, it would say that. If it was clear that it was based on how large the unit was when it would be wiped out, it would say that.
But all it says is that "it can return to the battlefield at the start of your next turn." That could easily mean how many models are dead to as much as how many are still left in play when it died, which would be none (and a stupid interpretation).
col_impact wrote:There is literally no justification for anything but 12 scarab models to re-enter play.
Also untrue if we go by the precedence for similar rules that allow a destroyed unit to be returned in to play.
For reference, the Tyranid Endless Swarm Formation from Leviathan II with the Endless Swarm rule:
Spoiler:
Each time a Hormagaunt or Termagant Brood from this Formation is completely destroyed, roll a D6: on a 4+ you can immediately place a new unit into Ongoing Reserve that is identical in terms of the original number of models, weapons and upgrades to the unit that was just destroyed. These new units count as being part of the original Formation, so roll a D6 as described above if they are subsequently destroyed. Victory points are awarded as normal for new units in this Formation that have been completely destroyed.
And from the Imperial Guard 5th Edition codex, Commander Chenkov's Send In the Next Wave:
Spoiler:
Any unit with this special rule that is removed from play may be brought back into play at the beginning of the controlling player's next turn. The new unit moves onto the board from the player's board edge. The unit arrives with as many models and exactly the same armaments as its full strength predecessor - it is treated as a new, identical unit that has just arrived from reserve.
col_impact wrote:Your appeal to precedence is laughable and shows that you will stoop to sophistry rather than simply admit you cannot counter my RAW argument. Let's stick with sorting out RAW and if you are unhappy with RAW then feel free to house rule it to your heart's content. No one is forcing you to play by RAW. I am just showing you what is RAW on the issue.
I make no appeal to precedence, but to use it since we have literally nothing else to go on. No RAW means we generate House Rules. Using other rules which DO have something else to go on to generate House Rules with is a practice I thought you might be familiar with. That is why I invoked precedence.
You should actually try and understand another person's argument before you attempt to address it. It makes things go a lot smoother.
RAW is exceedingly clear. The rule comes into effect only when the scarab unit is wiped out, not before. That means that there is a unit of 12 scarab models on the side of the table designated "completely destroyed" when the rule is triggered. In order to satisfy the rule and bring the scarab unit back into play from the side of the table you have not choice at all but to bring back the unit of 12 scarabs. No rule anywhere indicates "original" or "starting" and you are not allowed to add those words to the rule and consider it RAW. I understand that people like you are uncomfortable with rules interactions like this one, but refusing to recognize the plain logic in the RAW is just being intentionally obtuse.
To insist that we have no clear RAW directive on this issue is outright sophistry and trying to pass an utterly fallacious argument off as a true one.
RAW is hardly "exceedingly clear" and when you have to work this hard to establish such an exceedingly clear 'RAW' reading, it comes off as you trying to twist the rules to your advantage.
Which is exactly what it looks like to me
No one - not even you - can possibly think the idea of this unit coming back bigger than it started is right. Otherwise, sign me up for 9 Spyders and watch the unit double in size to be returned again every turn after adding 9 each time... see how stupid that sounds?
Massaen wrote: RAW is hardly "exceedingly clear" and when you have to work this hard to establish such an exceedingly clear 'RAW' reading, it comes off as you trying to twist the rules to your advantage.
Which is exactly what it looks like to me
No one - not even you - can possibly think the idea of this unit coming back bigger than it started is right. Otherwise, sign me up for 9 Spyders and watch the unit double in size to be returned again every turn after adding 9 each time... see how stupid that sounds?
I am not saying that the rule writer intended this interaction. That is an entirely different discussion and not a RAW discussion. We can never know what the rule writer intended, but it is hard to fathom he or she being wholly unaware of the fact the spyders grow scarab unit sizes.
We are discussing RAW and if you accept the words as they are written it is quite clear what they ask you to do. It's only because we are uncomfortable with a possibly abusive rule interaction that we try to wiggle out of it and twist the rule into saying something it does not. But the rules as they are written are indeed exceedingly clear.
At any rate, I have already tested out the rule interaction and it is surprisingly not OP. The unit is easy to tarpit with infantry. The rule is also easy to deny by killing the overlord. Points invested in trying to take advantage of the rule (extra spyders or a castle around the Overlord) wind up points you have to recoup or you lose outright with a bunch of mediocre support units.
You really need to test the rule interaction before you deem it abusively OP. This combo doesn't even register on the OP scale. You are better off running a Decurion with Canoptek Harvest and a D. Cult per the vanilla Necron codex or just running a regular Scarab Farm off a CAD and some Harvests for the RP buff.
Until you play it out you only see the nifty buffs granted by the combo. But when you play it out you see the hidden costs. So based on performance we cannot tell one way or the other anything about writer's intention. It simply isn't any more or less OP than what the Necron codex already offers. The Stalker, warrior, and overlord tax and opportunity cost for not running better units like Wraiths are things that factor into games that are actually played.
It's just Demon summoning for the Necron codex, but not anywhere near as good as Demon summoning.
Does the writing on the spyder directly say it increases the scarabs unit size or does it simply state it just adds another scarab, currently unable to get to my codex atm.
Oberron wrote: Does the writing on the spyder directly say it increases the scarabs unit size or does it simply state it just adds another scarab, currently unable to get to my codex atm.
Spoiler:
Scarab Hive: Once per friendly Movement phase, each Canoptek Spyder can use this special
rule to create Canoptek Scarabs. To do so, nominate a friendly unit of Canoptek Scarabs that
is within 6" of the Canoptek Spyder. Add a single Canoptek Scarab base to the unit – this can
take the unit beyond its starting size, but must be placed within 6" of the Canoptek Spyder. If
a model cannot be placed for any reason, it is destroyed. Canoptek Scarabs created in this
manner can move and act normally this turn. Roll a D6 each time a Canoptek Spyder uses its
Scarab Hive special rule, immediately after placing any Canoptek Scarabs that were created –
on a roll of a 1 the Canoptek Spyder suffers a single Wound with no saves of any
kind allowed.
col_impact wrote:Measurements for shooting and movement are indeed made from the model. Units in Reserve and units removed from play as casualties are comprised of models. The measurement rules do not require them to be on the battlefield and players are free to put units in Reserve and units removed from play as casualties on the side of the table.
Not what I asked. Try again.
col_impact wrote:So you measure from the units on the side of the table to the units on the battlefield and start firing away. Shooting and line of sight do not specify units 'in play' so units in reserve and unit that are removed from play as casualties are free to join in, UNLESS they are being excluded from the action as 'not in play'.
Quote the permission to use its off table position as a starting point or concede.
col_impact wrote:If the units in reserve and the units that have been removed play as a casualty are not excluded from the rules of units 'in play' then they will be free to move, shoot, assault, etc. and interact with the units on the battlefield.
Incorrect since units in Reserve or who have been removed from play do not have a proper measurement reference. "Over there" is not a proper measurement starting point.
col_impact wrote:If the units in reserves and the units that have been removed play as a casualty are excluded from the rules of units 'in play' then they will be in a sort of stasis waiting for permission to arrive from Reserves and then moving on from Reserve.
And if their rules do not matter a whole host of other rules get broken, try again.
col_impact wrote:A model that is 'removed from the game' cannot interact with the 'game' until it re-enters 'play'. I am curious what definition of 'play' you are using if not 'game play' and what definition of "removed from the game" if not actually removing the model from the game, since this point I am making is by definition and exceedingly obvious and not one I would expect anyone to struggle with.
It is "removed from play", I believe. And you keep saying this, but you have no provided not rules reference for this. Especially when it has been noted that there are numerous exceptions to this.
col_impact wrote:Jeeze, Charistoph, some of the stuff you come up with. 'Removed from the game' means 'removed from the game'. You don't get to play with your dead HQ anymore. He is out of the game!
And yet, this whole discussion is about doing exactly that. You cannot even follow your own rules. You are operating under pre-conceived notions which you think are rules in the rulebook. This is fine for House Ruling. But at least I admit when I'm House Ruling.
But by doing so, you do not adhere to your unquoted rule. The ICs rules can no longer affect other models since it is removed from play. Isn't that what you keep asserting? The rule does not state that this continues when the IC is not in play, after all.
So, choose which you will break, your made-up rule, or the IC's. I will choose to break a rule not in the rulebook and only in your head.
Once again the rule is granted upon army composition and only requires the IC be present when building the army. Your continued discussion of this case only shows that you cannot read or follow logic.
There is absolutely no further need to discuss this case because it is wholly irrelevant to the discussion at hand. However, your struggle to understand the logic of the rule is interesting.
It's not my illogic that presented this as a possible case. You are the one who is saying that special rules for models removed from play no longer matter, not me. I am simply pointing out a consequence.
Still not addressing the issue. The IC's rule regarding counting as part of the unit FOR ALL RULES PURPOSES would still apply at the end of the game since they are not allowed to leave the unit. If they can be counted as separate while joined to the unit when it is destroyed for Objective Points, they can be counted as separate in other areas, too, including ti coming back from the dead.
But again, maybe this logic path is too strait for you?
As stated already, the IC is an individual unit at all times and the Purge the Alien reminder is merely a statement of that ALE fact - that in whatever context the IC is always an individual unit. In the same way that a Captain on foot does not magically get a Jump pack when joined to a Jump unit, the Captain gets scored based on his ALE which is individual unit. The Purge the Alien rule directly references the ALE.
Yet your position is that the IC can come back as part of the unit because it counts as being part of the unit. You cannot have it both ways. The "Kill Point" rule never states anything about an ALE or anything similar, it just specifically mentions units, of which you think the IC cannot leave when dead.
True, but that doesn't mean his rules go away or are removed from play. In most cases, they require the model to be "in play", but the IC rule in question, does not. Indeed, being removed from play is sufficient to trigger at least one, eventually.
Incorrect. You require a rule that addresses the specific 'removed from play' zone. The rules of regular play do not affect the 'removed from play' zone.
Why? What rule states this? It's been asked for half a dozen times or more by now. Since you are not delivering, I will consider you conceding on this point and just kicking pricks to argue.
"Removed from play" is a quote that states it rather bluntly and directly and you keep trying to dance around that straightforward rule declaration and assert the opposite that the model is still "in play". When a model is "removed from play" you do not get to "play" anymore with that model, period, unless a rule specifically allows that model to re-enter "play".
But nothing you have provided supports this statement. You are assuming "Removed From Play" means all its rules stop and cannot be affected by others. Yet, if this was the case, the Scarabs and Warriors could not return since it is THEIR rule that allows this and that rule would be just as suspended as the IC's removal from the unit.
col_impact wrote:If you do not distinguish between "not in play" and "in play" the game breaks. The dead can shoot from the side of the table. Reserve units can move freely onto the battlefield. Your troops on the battlefield can shoot units in Reserve. The Apocalypse!
I am not having a problem distinguishing the difference. I am arguing that the limitations you believe in play on models not in play do not exist since we are given no such instructions to do so. Get your head in to the discussion already and actually pay attention to what the other person states instead of filtering it with your paradigm, would you?
col_impact wrote:"Removed from the game" and "not in play" means that model no longer gets to play. Again, you seem to indicate a problem with reading and logic.
And the definition for what that includes is where? It does not exist. So it is only in your head. I'll stick with what is Written for my RAW arguments. Have fun with your broken self-rules.
You have not demonstrated anything regarding the bounds of "in play" or "removed from play" in the rulebook and how a rule is limited by such. Your assertion is dross without support. Since you have yet to support it from the rulebook, it does not exist so is not something I have to consider in this argument.
Try and provide something from the rulebook to actually support your claims from now on.
"Removed from the game" means you don't get to play with the model anymore, period. No rules, nothing. Its removed from game play and has zero impact on the game until it gets specific permission to re-enter the game or factors into specific things like scoring at the End of the Game.
"Removed from the game" is a rule and you keep ignoring it.
My argument however respects what "removed from the game" means.
Until your argument treats a model that is "removed from the game" as indeed "removed from the game" it is wholly invalid and in direct violation of plainly stated rules in the BRB.
Still no quote on this... The status of "removed from play" is never stated as having the restrictions you are placing on it. So, my asking for confirmation is in direct violation of plainly stated rules that I have not read in the BRB? (and yes, I have read the entire BRB, I just don't always remember every detail)
Incorrect as I already addressed. Just because you think it breaks it does not mean it actually breaks. After all, you need points of reference and permission to do certain things, none of which apply in your scenarios.
If units in Reserve and units removed from the game as casualties are free to act as if they are 'in play' the game most assuredly breaks. Movement, shooting, and assaulting could all be done by units 'not in play' on the side of the table UNLESS they are excluded from being able to do so since they are either 'not in play' or 'removed from the game'
It is truly amazing that you wholly ignore the straightforward "removed from the game" rule declaration and carry on in your argument as if it doesn't apply to you. Utter sophistry.
No sophistry. Sophistry would be insisting that unwritten parameters are Rules As Written. Note the distinction.
col_impact wrote:RAW is exceedingly clear.
No, "it can return to the battlefield at the start of your next turn." is not clear on the number of models that can return.
col_impact wrote:The rule comes into effect only when the scarab unit is wiped out, not before.
Not in dispute. But then, there are no models in the unit when it is wiped out. Hence the difficulty with it NOT BEING CLEAR.
col_impact wrote:That means that there is a unit of 12 scarab models on the side of the table designated "completely destroyed" when the rule is triggered. In order to satisfy the rule and bring the scarab unit back into play from the side of the table you have not choice at all but to bring back the unit of 12 scarabs. No rule anywhere indicates "original" or "starting" and you are not allowed to add those words to the rule and consider it RAW. I understand that people like you are uncomfortable with rules interactions like this one, but refusing to recognize the plain logic in the RAW is just being intentionally obtuse.
No rule states "existing" or which "existing" form you use, either. As I mentioned before, if a unit is wiped out, there is no models in the unit, so we bring back nothing since that is all they have when they are wiped out?
I never stated my position on this was RAW. My position is that there is no RAW on this. Pay attention. I stated that since other rules operating in this manner do use the "original" or "starting" number that it would be good precedence to work with a rule that has no RAW regarding it.
col_impact wrote:To insist that we have no clear RAW directive on this issue is outright sophistry and trying to pass an utterly fallacious argument off as a true one.
It is not outright sophistry. It is a fact that the RAW does not state what quantity to reference when the unit returns. It is sophistry to insist that something that is not written IS actually written. It is sophistry to state that a person's position is RAW when they have already stated that it ISN'T RAW.
col_impact wrote:
Oberron wrote: Does the writing on the spyder directly say it increases the scarabs unit size or does it simply state it just adds another scarab, currently unable to get to my codex atm.
Spoiler:
Scarab Hive: Once per friendly Movement phase, each Canoptek Spyder can use this special rule to create Canoptek Scarabs. To do so, nominate a friendly unit of Canoptek Scarabs that is within 6" of the Canoptek Spyder. Add a single Canoptek Scarab base to the unit – this can take the unit beyond its starting size, but must be placed within 6" of the Canoptek Spyder. If a model cannot be placed for any reason, it is destroyed. Canoptek Scarabs created in this manner can move and act normally this turn. Roll a D6 each time a Canoptek Spyder uses its Scarab Hive special rule, immediately after placing any Canoptek Scarabs that were created – on a roll of a 1 the Canoptek Spyder suffers a single Wound with no saves of any kind allowed.
So, it does not increase the unit's size, it just adds Scarabs, if we take it literally. That it can be taken beyond its starting size is permission granted when adding the base. Nothing in either rule provides an explicit avenue for a Scarab unit of 12 bases to be returned. We can House Rule it to be so, but I doubt many people would accept it unless they could do the same.
col_impact wrote:Measurements for shooting and movement are indeed made from the model. Units in Reserve and units removed from play as casualties are comprised of models. The measurement rules do not require them to be on the battlefield and players are free to put units in Reserve and units removed from play as casualties on the side of the table.
Not what I asked. Try again.
col_impact wrote:So you measure from the units on the side of the table to the units on the battlefield and start firing away. Shooting and line of sight do not specify units 'in play' so units in reserve and unit that are removed from play as casualties are free to join in, UNLESS they are being excluded from the action as 'not in play'.
Quote the permission to use its off table position as a starting point or concede.
col_impact wrote:If the units in reserve and the units that have been removed play as a casualty are not excluded from the rules of units 'in play' then they will be free to move, shoot, assault, etc. and interact with the units on the battlefield.
Incorrect since units in Reserve or who have been removed from play do not have a proper measurement reference. "Over there" is not a proper measurement starting point.
col_impact wrote:If the units in reserves and the units that have been removed play as a casualty are excluded from the rules of units 'in play' then they will be in a sort of stasis waiting for permission to arrive from Reserves and then moving on from Reserve.
And if their rules do not matter a whole host of other rules get broken, try again.
col_impact wrote:A model that is 'removed from the game' cannot interact with the 'game' until it re-enters 'play'. I am curious what definition of 'play' you are using if not 'game play' and what definition of "removed from the game" if not actually removing the model from the game, since this point I am making is by definition and exceedingly obvious and not one I would expect anyone to struggle with.
It is "removed from play", I believe. And you keep saying this, but you have no provided not rules reference for this. Especially when it has been noted that there are numerous exceptions to this.
col_impact wrote:Jeeze, Charistoph, some of the stuff you come up with. 'Removed from the game' means 'removed from the game'. You don't get to play with your dead HQ anymore. He is out of the game!
And yet, this whole discussion is about doing exactly that. You cannot even follow your own rules. You are operating under pre-conceived notions which you think are rules in the rulebook. This is fine for House Ruling. But at least I admit when I'm House Ruling.
The rules for Movement do not specify on the battlefield or units in play.
Spoiler:
In your turn, you can move any of your units – all of them if you wish – up to their maximum movement distance.
The rules for Shooting do not specify units on the battlefield or units in play.
Spoiler:
The Shooting Sequence
1. Nominate Unit to Shoot. Choose one of your units that is able to shoot but has yet to do so this turn.
2. Choose a Target. The unit can shoot at an enemy unit that it can see.
3. Select a Weapon. Select a weapon the firing unit is equipped with. All models equipped with a weapon with the same name can now shoot that weapon at the target. Every model that wishes to shoot must be within range of at least one visible model in the target unit. Models that cannot see the target, or are not in range, cannot shoot.
The rules for line of sight do not specify units on the battlefield or units in play.
Spoiler:
For one model to have line of sight to another, you must be able to trace a straight, unblocked line from its body (the head, torso, arms or legs) to any part of the target’s body.
The rules for range do not specify units on the battlefield or units in play.
Spoiler:
When checking range, simply measure from each firer to the nearest visible model in the target unit.
The rules for assault do not specify units on the battlefield or units in play.
Spoiler:
Choose a unit in your army that is declaring a charge and nominate the enemy unit(s) it is attempting to charge. A unit can never declare a charge against a unit that it cannot reach, nor can it declare a charge against a unit that it cannot see . . .
The rules for psychic attacks do not specify units on the battlefield or units in play.
Spoiler:
Just like when shooting a weapon, a Psyker must be able to see the target unit (or target point) and cannot be locked in combat if he wishes to manifest a witchfire power.
The only thing keeping units that are not on the battlefield and not in play from interacting with units on the battlefield and in play (and breaking the game) is their designation as "not in play" or "removed from play" and the consequences of that designation.
A unit that is "removed from play" or "not in play" can not be played in any game sense except for rules that specifically address units "removed from play" or "removed from the game" or "not in play". Allowing those units to benefit from general rules is allowing those units "to play" which they are not allowed to do, since they have been "removed from play".
If your argument does not treat "removed from play" as indeed "removed from play" then your whole argument is not only invalid and directly contradicting a plainly stated rule in the BRB but you break the game. Units in Reserve can move and shoot onto the Battlefield and dead units on the side of the table can shoot and dead HQ can grant +1 Re-animation Protocol buffs to units on the battlefield that are close to the side of the table.
But by doing so, you do not adhere to your unquoted rule. The ICs rules can no longer affect other models since it is removed from play. Isn't that what you keep asserting? The rule does not state that this continues when the IC is not in play, after all.
So, choose which you will break, your made-up rule, or the IC's. I will choose to break a rule not in the rulebook and only in your head.
Once again the rule is granted upon army composition and only requires the IC be present when building the army. Your continued discussion of this case only shows that you cannot read or follow logic.
There is absolutely no further need to discuss this case because it is wholly irrelevant to the discussion at hand. However, your struggle to understand the logic of the rule is interesting.
It's not my illogic that presented this as a possible case. You are the one who is saying that special rules for models removed from play no longer matter, not me. I am simply pointing out a consequence.
It's your inability to read that presented this a possible case.
Simply read the rule.
Spoiler:
Mounted Assault: If a unit with this special rule is chosen as part of a Detachment that contains at least one independent character with the Space Marines Faction equipped with a Space Marine bike, the unit’s Battlefield Role changes to Troops.
The rule is triggered upon and only upon the choosing of the unit to be a part of the Detachment which happens only at army composition and at not other time. The rule is in no way dependent on the IC staying in play during the game. This case has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion at hand. A simple read of the rule confirms that. If for some reason you are still confused by the rule, point to the part of the rule which is the trigger for the rule (Hint: I have marked it in red for you)
Still not addressing the issue. The IC's rule regarding counting as part of the unit FOR ALL RULES PURPOSES would still apply at the end of the game since they are not allowed to leave the unit. If they can be counted as separate while joined to the unit when it is destroyed for Objective Points, they can be counted as separate in other areas, too, including ti coming back from the dead.
But again, maybe this logic path is too strait for you?
As stated already, the IC is an individual unit at all times and the Purge the Alien reminder is merely a statement of that ALE fact - that in whatever context the IC is always an individual unit. In the same way that a Captain on foot does not magically get a Jump pack when joined to a Jump unit, the Captain gets scored based on his ALE which is individual unit. The Purge the Alien rule directly references the ALE.
Yet your position is that the IC can come back as part of the unit because it counts as being part of the unit. You cannot have it both ways. The "Kill Point" rule never states anything about an ALE or anything similar, it just specifically mentions units, of which you think the IC cannot leave when dead.
Incorrect. My position is that the IC is "removed from play" as part of the unit and no play transpires for the IC while the IC is removed from play since the IC at that point is by definition "removed from play" and having play transpire for him would violate "removed from play". Your argument ignores the injunction to treat the IC as "removed from play".
On top of that there is also the fact that the IC is always an individual unit, whether attached or not. The Purge the Alien reminder is merely a statement of that ALE fact and scores based on that ALE fact. This is similar to how an IC is still an HQ whether attached or not attached to a unit. The IC never discards his ALE. In order for your argument to have a case you must show that the ALE is being discarded.
col_impact wrote:If you do not distinguish between "not in play" and "in play" the game breaks. The dead can shoot from the side of the table. Reserve units can move freely onto the battlefield. Your troops on the battlefield can shoot units in Reserve. The Apocalypse!
I am not having a problem distinguishing the difference. I am arguing that the limitations you believe in play on models not in play do not exist since we are given no such instructions to do so. Get your head in to the discussion already and actually pay attention to what the other person states instead of filtering it with your paradigm, would you?
col_impact wrote:"Removed from the game" and "not in play" means that model no longer gets to play. Again, you seem to indicate a problem with reading and logic.
And the definition for what that includes is where? It does not exist. So it is only in your head. I'll stick with what is Written for my RAW arguments. Have fun with your broken self-rules.
You have not demonstrated anything regarding the bounds of "in play" or "removed from play" in the rulebook and how a rule is limited by such. Your assertion is dross without support. Since you have yet to support it from the rulebook, it does not exist so is not something I have to consider in this argument.
Try and provide something from the rulebook to actually support your claims from now on.
"Removed from the game" means you don't get to play with the model anymore, period. No rules, nothing. Its removed from game play and has zero impact on the game until it gets specific permission to re-enter the game or factors into specific things like scoring at the End of the Game.
"Removed from the game" is a rule and you keep ignoring it.
My argument however respects what "removed from the game" means.
Until your argument treats a model that is "removed from the game" as indeed "removed from the game" it is wholly invalid and in direct violation of plainly stated rules in the BRB.
Still no quote on this... The status of "removed from play" is never stated as having the restrictions you are placing on it. So, my asking for confirmation is in direct violation of plainly stated rules that I have not read in the BRB? (and yes, I have read the entire BRB, I just don't always remember every detail)
Incorrect as I already addressed. Just because you think it breaks it does not mean it actually breaks. After all, you need points of reference and permission to do certain things, none of which apply in your scenarios.
If units in Reserve and units removed from the game as casualties are free to act as if they are 'in play' the game most assuredly breaks. Movement, shooting, and assaulting could all be done by units 'not in play' on the side of the table UNLESS they are excluded from being able to do so since they are either 'not in play' or 'removed from the game'
It is truly amazing that you wholly ignore the straightforward "removed from the game" rule declaration and carry on in your argument as if it doesn't apply to you. Utter sophistry.
No sophistry. Sophistry would be insisting that unwritten parameters are Rules As Written. Note the distinction.
In plain English the BRB is telling you to take a unit that is a casualty and "remove it from play".
Your response is that you don't have to act on that rule since the rules does not indicate what that means.
My response is that you take that unit and indeed "remove it from play" which means "play" will no longer transpire for that unit unless rules specifically remove the "remove from play" part.
By taking my response, the game is not broken. Units in Reserve are in stasis until allowed to enter. Units removed as casualties no longer have the ability to interact with the game. The rules require a distinction between "in play" and "removed from play" and I enforce that distinction.
By taking your response (that you don't actually have to take a unit that is a casualty and "remove it from play"), the game breaks at a profound level.
Units in Reserve can move or assault freely onto the board provided they are placed on the side of the table proximate enough to do so.
Units in Reserve or removed from play as casualties can also shoot units on the battlefield so long as they have line of sight and range.
Units in Reserve or removed from play as casualties can also grant things like 12" bubble buffs provided the units on the battlefield are within range.
The rules require you to treat units that are casualties as "removed from play". You cannot do nothing and satisfy this rule. The rule requires a distinction to be made - making no distinction breaks the rule. You must define what "play" is and act on that definition, or you go against the rules.
My argument simply treats units that are "removed from play" as indeed "removed from play".
col_impact wrote: The only thing keeping units that are not on the battlefield and not in play from interacting with units on the battlefield and in play (and breaking the game) is their designation as "not in play" or "removed from play" and the consequences of that designation.
Except that designation of "not in play" does not apply to units in Reserves. Nor is "in play" used to define any deployed unit. Nor are any reference points allowed for units "not in play".
Try again.
col_impact wrote: A unit that is "removed from play" or "not in play" can not be played in any game sense except for rules that specifically address units "removed from play" or "removed from the game" or "not in play". Allowing those units to benefit from general rules is allowing those units "to play" which they are not allowed to do, since they have been "removed from play".
If your argument does not treat "removed from play" as indeed "removed from play" then your whole argument is not only invalid and directly contradicting a plainly stated rule in the BRB but you break the game. Units in Reserve can move and shoot onto the Battlefield and dead units on the side of the table can shoot and dead HQ can grant +1 Re-animation Protocol buffs to units on the battlefield that are close to the side of the table.
Except you have provided zero evidence of what "removed from play" entails for the game. I can treat "removed from play" as is perceived in a host of other game systems and rules and all would be as equally applicable as to what you have not quoted as a rule for this game.
Here's another thought for you. If a model's rules are no longer in play when it is removed from play, than the ICs rule about being able to be a unit that joins a unit is also removed, meaning that the IC still does not come back with the Warriors or Scarabs. You cannot have it both ways here any more than you can have it both ways for Kill Objectives.
Still not addressing the issue. The IC's rule regarding counting as part of the unit FOR ALL RULES PURPOSES would still apply at the end of the game since they are not allowed to leave the unit. If they can be counted as separate while joined to the unit when it is destroyed for Objective Points, they can be counted as separate in other areas, too, including ti coming back from the dead.
But again, maybe this logic path is too strait for you?
As stated already, the IC is an individual unit at all times and the Purge the Alien reminder is merely a statement of that ALE fact - that in whatever context the IC is always an individual unit. In the same way that a Captain on foot does not magically get a Jump pack when joined to a Jump unit, the Captain gets scored based on his ALE which is individual unit. The Purge the Alien rule directly references the ALE.
Yet your position is that the IC can come back as part of the unit because it counts as being part of the unit. You cannot have it both ways. The "Kill Point" rule never states anything about an ALE or anything similar, it just specifically mentions units, of which you think the IC cannot leave when dead.
Incorrect. My position is that the IC is "removed from play" as part of the unit and no play transpires for the IC while the IC is removed from play since the IC at that point is by definition "removed from play" and having play transpire for him would violate "removed from play". Your argument ignores the injunction to treat the IC as "removed from play".
Again, no. It violates YOUR definition of "removed from play", and since you cannot quote anything in the rulebook which defines it as such, it makes it only a HYWPI House Rule.
So, again, the IC rules get removed from play and the IC has no permission to be joined to a unit before using YOUR rules. IC does not return with the unit.
col_impact wrote: On top of that there is also the fact that the IC is always an individual unit, whether attached or not. The Purge the Alien reminder is merely a statement of that ALE fact and scores based on that ALE fact. This is similar to how an IC is still an HQ whether attached or not attached to a unit. The IC never discards his ALE. In order for your argument to have a case you must show that the ALE is being discarded.
What do triggers have to do with it? I am talking about maintaining the rule which apparently is no longer in play. The detachment loses the rule since it lost the IC.
Did I ever state it discards his ALE? No. At best, I have only ever stated that it's ALE identity is sublimated by the unit it joins and counts as a member of FOR ALL RULES PURPOSES. Kill Point Objectives make no active distinction, but only provide a reminder. A reminder of a fait accompli that the IC is separated from the unit before the game ends when it dies, with or without the unit.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
col_impact wrote: In plain English the BRB is telling you to take a unit that is a casualty and "remove it from play".
And in multiple of uses it has seen many definitions. One of which is returning to its original state.
col_impact wrote: Your response is that you don't have to act on that rule since the rules does not indicate what that means.
No, I am saying that I don't have to act on your preconceived definition. Note the difference.
col_impact wrote: My response is that you take that unit and indeed "remove it from play" which means "play" will no longer transpire for that unit unless rules specifically remove the "remove from play" part.
Without any support whatsoever from the rulebook. Only your preconceived notions.
col_impact wrote: By taking my response, the game is not broken. Units in Reserve are in stasis until allowed to enter. Units removed as casualties no longer have the ability to interact with the game. The rules require a distinction between "in play" and "removed from play" and I enforce that distinction.
By taking your response (that you don't actually have to take a unit that is a casualty and "remove it from play"), the game breaks at a profound level.
Units in Reserve can move or assault freely onto the board provided they are placed on the side of the table proximate enough to do so.
Units in Reserve or removed from play as casualties can also shoot units on the battlefield so long as they have line of sight and range.
Units in Reserve or removed from play as casualties can also grant things like 12" bubble buffs provided the units on the battlefield are within range.
The rules require you to treat units that are casualties as "removed from play". You cannot do nothing and satisfy this rule. The rule requires a distinction to be made - making no distinction breaks the rule. You must define what "play" is and act on that definition, or you go against the rules.
My argument simply treats units that are "removed from play" as indeed "removed from play".
Only you cannot provide that as the rulebook's definition of "removed from play" nor that it is the standard English version of "removed from play", nor the standard gaming standard of "removed from play".
Oberron wrote: Does the writing on the spyder directly say it increases the scarabs unit size or does it simply state it just adds another scarab, currently unable to get to my codex atm.
Spoiler:
Scarab Hive: Once per friendly Movement phase, each Canoptek Spyder can use this special rule to create Canoptek Scarabs. To do so, nominate a friendly unit of Canoptek Scarabs that is within 6" of the Canoptek Spyder. Add a single Canoptek Scarab base to the unit – this can take the unit beyond its starting size, but must be placed within 6" of the Canoptek Spyder. If a model cannot be placed for any reason, it is destroyed. Canoptek Scarabs created in this manner can move and act normally this turn. Roll a D6 each time a Canoptek Spyder uses its Scarab Hive special rule, immediately after placing any Canoptek Scarabs that were created – on a roll of a 1 the Canoptek Spyder suffers a single Wound with no saves of any kind allowed.
So, it does not increase the unit's size, it just adds Scarabs, if we take it literally. That it can be taken beyond its starting size is permission granted when adding the base. Nothing in either rule provides an explicit avenue for a Scarab unit of 12 bases to be returned. We can House Rule it to be so, but I doubt many people would accept it unless they could do the same.
Incorrect. "Taking the unit beyond its starting size" is increasing the unit's size. If you still have a unit size of nine somehow, you have not taken the unit beyond it's starting size, and contradict what the rule told you to do. Simple logic.
This would appear to be another attempt by you at sophistry.
The RAW is exceedingly clear that the full unit of 12 scarabs will be returned. The unit size of the scarabs has been taken beyond its starting size and there are 12 models in the "removed from play" pile on the side of the table when the "From the Sands, We Rise" rule is triggered. In order to satisfy the rule you have no choice but to return the unit of 12 scarabs to play. There is literally no justification to return anything but the unit of 12.
That is just how the RAW pans out.
I have tested the rule interaction and can attest that it is not OP. However, should the rule interaction make you feel uncomfortable, then you are of course free to house rule it however which way you like.
col_impact wrote: The only thing keeping units that are not on the battlefield and not in play from interacting with units on the battlefield and in play (and breaking the game) is their designation as "not in play" or "removed from play" and the consequences of that designation.
Except that designation of "not in play" does not apply to units in Reserves. Nor is "in play" used to define any deployed unit. Nor are any reference points allowed for units "not in play".
Try again.
col_impact wrote: A unit that is "removed from play" or "not in play" can not be played in any game sense except for rules that specifically address units "removed from play" or "removed from the game" or "not in play". Allowing those units to benefit from general rules is allowing those units "to play" which they are not allowed to do, since they have been "removed from play".
If your argument does not treat "removed from play" as indeed "removed from play" then your whole argument is not only invalid and directly contradicting a plainly stated rule in the BRB but you break the game. Units in Reserve can move and shoot onto the Battlefield and dead units on the side of the table can shoot and dead HQ can grant +1 Re-animation Protocol buffs to units on the battlefield that are close to the side of the table.
Except you have provided zero evidence of what "removed from play" entails for the game. I can treat "removed from play" as is perceived in a host of other game systems and rules and all would be as equally applicable as to what you have not quoted as a rule for this game.
Here's another thought for you. If a model's rules are no longer in play when it is removed from play, than the ICs rule about being able to be a unit that joins a unit is also removed, meaning that the IC still does not come back with the Warriors or Scarabs. You cannot have it both ways here any more than you can have it both ways for Kill Objectives.
Still not addressing the issue. The IC's rule regarding counting as part of the unit FOR ALL RULES PURPOSES would still apply at the end of the game since they are not allowed to leave the unit. If they can be counted as separate while joined to the unit when it is destroyed for Objective Points, they can be counted as separate in other areas, too, including ti coming back from the dead.
But again, maybe this logic path is too strait for you?
As stated already, the IC is an individual unit at all times and the Purge the Alien reminder is merely a statement of that ALE fact - that in whatever context the IC is always an individual unit. In the same way that a Captain on foot does not magically get a Jump pack when joined to a Jump unit, the Captain gets scored based on his ALE which is individual unit. The Purge the Alien rule directly references the ALE.
Yet your position is that the IC can come back as part of the unit because it counts as being part of the unit. You cannot have it both ways. The "Kill Point" rule never states anything about an ALE or anything similar, it just specifically mentions units, of which you think the IC cannot leave when dead.
Incorrect. My position is that the IC is "removed from play" as part of the unit and no play transpires for the IC while the IC is removed from play since the IC at that point is by definition "removed from play" and having play transpire for him would violate "removed from play". Your argument ignores the injunction to treat the IC as "removed from play".
Again, no. It violates YOUR definition of "removed from play", and since you cannot quote anything in the rulebook which defines it as such, it makes it only a HYWPI House Rule.
So, again, the IC rules get removed from play and the IC has no permission to be joined to a unit before using YOUR rules. IC does not return with the unit.
col_impact wrote: On top of that there is also the fact that the IC is always an individual unit, whether attached or not. The Purge the Alien reminder is merely a statement of that ALE fact and scores based on that ALE fact. This is similar to how an IC is still an HQ whether attached or not attached to a unit. The IC never discards his ALE. In order for your argument to have a case you must show that the ALE is being discarded.
What do triggers have to do with it? I am talking about maintaining the rule which apparently is no longer in play. The detachment loses the rule since it lost the IC.
Did I ever state it discards his ALE? No. At best, I have only ever stated that it's ALE identity is sublimated by the unit it joins and counts as a member of FOR ALL RULES PURPOSES. Kill Point Objectives make no active distinction, but only provide a reminder. A reminder of a fait accompli that the IC is separated from the unit before the game ends when it dies, with or without the unit.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
col_impact wrote: In plain English the BRB is telling you to take a unit that is a casualty and "remove it from play".
And in multiple of uses it has seen many definitions. One of which is returning to its original state.
col_impact wrote: Your response is that you don't have to act on that rule since the rules does not indicate what that means.
No, I am saying that I don't have to act on your preconceived definition. Note the difference.
col_impact wrote: My response is that you take that unit and indeed "remove it from play" which means "play" will no longer transpire for that unit unless rules specifically remove the "remove from play" part.
Without any support whatsoever from the rulebook. Only your preconceived notions.
col_impact wrote: By taking my response, the game is not broken. Units in Reserve are in stasis until allowed to enter. Units removed as casualties no longer have the ability to interact with the game. The rules require a distinction between "in play" and "removed from play" and I enforce that distinction.
By taking your response (that you don't actually have to take a unit that is a casualty and "remove it from play"), the game breaks at a profound level.
Units in Reserve can move or assault freely onto the board provided they are placed on the side of the table proximate enough to do so.
Units in Reserve or removed from play as casualties can also shoot units on the battlefield so long as they have line of sight and range.
Units in Reserve or removed from play as casualties can also grant things like 12" bubble buffs provided the units on the battlefield are within range.
The rules require you to treat units that are casualties as "removed from play". You cannot do nothing and satisfy this rule. The rule requires a distinction to be made - making no distinction breaks the rule. You must define what "play" is and act on that definition, or you go against the rules.
My argument simply treats units that are "removed from play" as indeed "removed from play".
Only you cannot provide that as the rulebook's definition of "removed from play" nor that it is the standard English version of "removed from play", nor the standard gaming standard of "removed from play".
Have fun with that.
The rules require you to have a distinction between units "in play" and "units not in play".
If you make no distinction and ignore the "removed from play" injunction, you have not only broken a clear rule but you have a broken game.
The rulebook provides a clear indication of what play is and we must enforce the distinction between "in play" and "not in play".
Spoiler:
During his turn, a player can usually move and fight once with each of his units. For
convenience and flow of game play, we divide a player’s turn into four main phases:
Movement, Psychic, Shooting and Assault.
This means that you move any models you want to first, then when you are finished all of
your moving, your psykers can invoke the power of the Warp. Then you can shoot with
your models, and finally, once your shooting is all completed, you can charge into assault
and resolve any close combats. This process helps to keep track of what is going on and
makes it easier to know when one player’s actions are over and their opponent can start
his turn (and take his revenge).
We also know that play is confined to the Battlefield.
Spoiler:
THE BATTLEFIELD
The battlefield over which your game is played must be set up before the game begins. This step is split into two parts: creating the battlefield itself, and placing scenery upon it.
We also know that game play happens between the Start of the Game and the End of the game. Game play commences with the Start of the Game and ends with the End of the Game and generally has the length of certain number of game turns.
Spoiler:
GAME LENGTH
For most games, the length of the game will be a certain number of game turns.
So game play has to do with the actions units are entitled to make during the four main phases (Movement, Psychic, Shooting and Assault) that are during the turns of the game and that are also on the Battlefield.
Units in Reserve that have not "entered play" do not take part in game play (the four main phases) until they enter play by entering the Battlefield.
Removal from the Battlefield takes you out of where the game is played and out of the game play of the four main phases.
Units removed as casualties and "removed from play" and set explicitly off the Battlefield do not take part in game play at all unless a rule somehow returns them to play or a rule specifically addresses their "removed from play" zone.
If you do not enforce a distinction between "in play" and "not in play" then units in Reserve and units removed from play as casualties are free to participate in Movement, Psychic, Shooting, and Assault. This breaks the game.
So an IC is attached to a unit of scarabs and the whole lot of them are removed from play as casualties and put on the side of the table. No play happens at the side of the table off the battlefield. No play transpires for the IC and scarabs in the "removed from play" zone. They skip the turns and phases of the game - if they didn't skip them then they would not be "removed from play". If a rule returns the unit of scarabs to play then it returns the IC to play as well. No rule transpired that would detach the IC from the scarab unit.
col_impact wrote: The IC is 'not in play' at the start of the following phase. If he were in play that rule would definitely affect him. But alas, he is not 'in play'. The rule must specifically address the 'removed from play' zone to affect units 'not in play'. As has been shown, the game breaks if regular rules of play are free to apply to units that are 'not in play' so the game requires that rules specifically address the 'removed from play' zone to be empowered to affect the 'removed from play' zone.
You fail to show a rule that requires him to be in play. Citation please. The rule that states he is part of the unit is the same rule you are claiming to ignore here.
col_impact wrote: The IC is 'not in play' at the start of the following phase. If he were in play that rule would definitely affect him. But alas, he is not 'in play'. The rule must specifically address the 'removed from play' zone to affect units 'not in play'. As has been shown, the game breaks if regular rules of play are free to apply to units that are 'not in play' so the game requires that rules specifically address the 'removed from play' zone to be empowered to affect the 'removed from play' zone.
You fail to show a rule that requires him to be in play. Citation please. The rule that states he is part of the unit is the same rule you are claiming to ignore here.
The IC is not participating in the four main phases, or the turn sequence, or in action on the battlefield per rules already cited. If he were participating in the next phase, he would be 'in play' and in violation of the injunction to be "removed from play". He is skipping the next phase and indeed all phases because he is "removed from play". A rule has to return him to play on the battlefield to return him to participating in the four main phases.
You need to provide a rule that specifically addresses the IC while "removed from play" in order to detach him while the IC is "removed from play".
col_impact wrote:The rules require you to have a distinction between units "in play" and "units not in play".
If you make no distinction and ignore the "removed from play" injunction, you have not only broken a clear rule but you have a broken game.
This is an assumption, only. you have no rules to support this. Even more so, not are you only making an assumption, you are making further assumptions based on that assumption. A deadly spiral.
Quote the rules that literally state this.
col_impact wrote:The rulebook provides a clear indication of what play is and we must enforce the distinction between "in play" and "not in play".
Oh, are you actually going to quote the rules finally after numerous requests? Finally!
col_impact wrote:
Spoiler:
During his turn, a player can usually move and fight once with each of his units. For
convenience and flow of game play, we divide a player’s turn into four main phases:
Movement, Psychic, Shooting and Assault.
This means that you move any models you want to first, then when you are finished all of
your moving, your psykers can invoke the power of the Warp. Then you can shoot with
your models, and finally, once your shooting is all completed, you can charge into assault
and resolve any close combats. This process helps to keep track of what is going on and
makes it easier to know when one player’s actions are over and their opponent can start
his turn (and take his revenge).
Hmm, nothing about being "in play".
col_impact wrote:We also know that play is confined to the Battlefield.
Spoiler:
THE BATTLEFIELD
The battlefield over which your game is played must be set up before the game begins. This step is split into two parts: creating the battlefield itself, and placing scenery upon it.
Still nothing about being "in play".
col_impact wrote:We also know that game play happens between the Start of the Game and the End of the game. Game play commences with the Start of the Game and ends with the End of the Game and generally has the length of certain number of game turns.
Spoiler:
GAME LENGTH
For most games, the length of the game will be a certain number of game turns.
So game play has to do with the actions units are entitled to make during the four main phases (Movement, Psychic, Shooting and Assault) that are during the turns of the game and that are also on the Battlefield.
And nothing about being "in play". 3 up, 3 fails. They are perfectly reasonable for assumptions to be made, but as actual rules for "being in play", they are failing.
col_impact wrote:Units in Reserve that have not "entered play" do not take part in game play (the four main phases) until they enter play by entering the Battlefield.
Removal from the Battlefield takes you out of where the game is played and out of the game play of the four main phases.
Units removed as casualties and "removed from play" and set explicitly off the Battlefield do not take part in game play at all unless a rule somehow returns them to play or a rule specifically addresses their "removed from play" zone.
If you do not enforce a distinction between "in play" and "not in play" then units in Reserve and units removed from play as casualties are free to participate in Movement, Psychic, Shooting, and Assault. This breaks the game.
Still failing to actually address my argument or quoting anything about how not "being in play" actually limits all the rules of the unit.
col_impact wrote:So an IC is attached to a unit of scarabs and the whole lot of them are removed from play as casualties and put on the side of the table. No play happens at the side of the table off the battlefield. No play transpires for the IC and scarabs in the "removed from play" zone. They skip the turns and phases of the game - if they didn't skip them then they would not be "removed from play". If a rule returns the unit of scarabs to play then it returns the IC to play as well. No rule transpired that would detach the IC from the scarab unit.
There is absolutely nothing that supports this aside from your own assumptions. Since this portion is key to your stance, you must quote the rules to support it. This is a tenet of YMDC.
In the end what you have is, "we ignore the IC leaving a unit rules because I say they do because that is how I treat 'removed from play'." That is perfectly fine for House Rules, especially when there are no actual rules defining the situation. But at least recognize when you are doing it.
col_impact wrote: The IC is 'not in play' at the start of the following phase. If he were in play that rule would definitely affect him. But alas, he is not 'in play'. The rule must specifically address the 'removed from play' zone to affect units 'not in play'. As has been shown, the game breaks if regular rules of play are free to apply to units that are 'not in play' so the game requires that rules specifically address the 'removed from play' zone to be empowered to affect the 'removed from play' zone.
You fail to show a rule that requires him to be in play. Citation please. The rule that states he is part of the unit is the same rule you are claiming to ignore here.
The IC is not participating in the four main phases, or the turn sequence, or in action on the battlefield per rules already cited. If he were participating in the next phase, he would be 'in play' and in violation of the injunction to be "removed from play". He is skipping the next phase and indeed all phases because he is "removed from play". A rule has to return him to play on the battlefield to return him to participating in the four main phases.
You need to provide a rule that specifically addresses the IC while "removed from play" in order to detach him while the IC is "removed from play".
Lack of participation does not mean that its rules are ignored, especially when those rules are not limited to a time phrase or status of "in play". The IC rules regarding the IC leaving the unit when the rest of the unit is destroyed is the trigger. This trigger does not have any requirement of the IC being in play or not, but reliant on the rest of the models NOT being in play.
With no rule stating such a requirement that the model in question being in play, I have no right to deny this trigger. With no rule stating that a model not in play is denied any trigger of its special rule, I cannot deny this trigger.
So, again, you are making assumptions on the rules and calling them RAW. And since you ask so many to do this, mark your posts HYWPI.
Also that battlefield quote doesn't say what you think it does. It just say you play the game using a battlefield, not that everything that happens in the game is solely confined to happening upon the battlefield itself.
Matt.Kingsley wrote: Also that battlefield quote doesn't say what you think it does. It just say you play the game using a battlefield, not that everything that happens in the game is solely confined to happening upon the battlefield itself.
Incorrect. It literally says you play the game over the Battlefield. That does not include the space under the Battlefield. Nor does it include the space on the side of the table outside the battlefield. If it did then under the battlefield and to the side of the battlefield would be legal areas of play.
Units on the Battlefield cannot shoot at units under the Battlefield nor can they shoot at units outside of the Battlefield, since the game is played over the Battlefield.
Units in Reserve "enter play" by moving on to the Battlefield.
Spoiler:
Not Enough Room
It’s not uncommon to find that you can’t fit all of the models in your army into your deployment zone. When this happens, any units that can’t fit into your deployment zone must be held back as Reserves, and will enter play later during the battle, hopefully when there is room for them to fit onto the battlefield.
Leaving the Battlefield and going into Ongoing Reserves involves leaving play because you are required to re-enter play.
Spoiler:
If a unit enters Reserve part way through the game, such as a Flyer leaving the battlefield, this is referred to as entering Ongoing Reserves. Units in Ongoing Reserve always re-enter play at the start of their controlling player’s following turn, but otherwise follow the normal rules for Reserves.
Without a doubt, "over the Battlefield" defines where 'play' happens. If you are not on the Battlefield you are not 'in play'.
col_impact wrote:The rules require you to have a distinction between units "in play" and "units not in play".
If you make no distinction and ignore the "removed from play" injunction, you have not only broken a clear rule but you have a broken game.
This is an assumption, only. you have no rules to support this. Even more so, not are you only making an assumption, you are making further assumptions based on that assumption. A deadly spiral.
Quote the rules that literally state this.
col_impact wrote:The rulebook provides a clear indication of what play is and we must enforce the distinction between "in play" and "not in play".
Oh, are you actually going to quote the rules finally after numerous requests? Finally!
col_impact wrote:
During his turn, a player can usually move and fight once with each of his units. For
convenience and flow of game play, we divide a player’s turn into four main phases:
Movement, Psychic, Shooting and Assault.
This means that you move any models you want to first, then when you are finished all of
your moving, your psykers can invoke the power of the Warp. Then you can shoot with
your models, and finally, once your shooting is all completed, you can charge into assault
and resolve any close combats. This process helps to keep track of what is going on and
makes it easier to know when one player’s actions are over and their opponent can start
his turn (and take his revenge).
Hmm, nothing about being "in play".
col_impact wrote:We also know that play is confined to the Battlefield.
THE BATTLEFIELD
The battlefield over which your game is played must be set up before the game begins. This step is split into two parts: creating the battlefield itself, and placing scenery upon it.
Still nothing about being "in play".
col_impact wrote:We also know that game play happens between the Start of the Game and the End of the game. Game play commences with the Start of the Game and ends with the End of the Game and generally has the length of certain number of game turns.
GAME LENGTH
For most games, the length of the game will be a certain number of game turns.
So game play has to do with the actions units are entitled to make during the four main phases (Movement, Psychic, Shooting and Assault) that are during the turns of the game and that are also on the Battlefield.
And nothing about being "in play". 3 up, 3 fails. They are perfectly reasonable for assumptions to be made, but as actual rules for "being in play", they are failing.
col_impact wrote:Units in Reserve that have not "entered play" do not take part in game play (the four main phases) until they enter play by entering the Battlefield.
Removal from the Battlefield takes you out of where the game is played and out of the game play of the four main phases.
Units removed as casualties and "removed from play" and set explicitly off the Battlefield do not take part in game play at all unless a rule somehow returns them to play or a rule specifically addresses their "removed from play" zone.
If you do not enforce a distinction between "in play" and "not in play" then units in Reserve and units removed from play as casualties are free to participate in Movement, Psychic, Shooting, and Assault. This breaks the game.
Still failing to actually address my argument or quoting anything about how not "being in play" actually limits all the rules of the unit.
col_impact wrote:So an IC is attached to a unit of scarabs and the whole lot of them are removed from play as casualties and put on the side of the table. No play happens at the side of the table off the battlefield. No play transpires for the IC and scarabs in the "removed from play" zone. They skip the turns and phases of the game - if they didn't skip them then they would not be "removed from play". If a rule returns the unit of scarabs to play then it returns the IC to play as well. No rule transpired that would detach the IC from the scarab unit.
There is absolutely nothing that supports this aside from your own assumptions. Since this portion is key to your stance, you must quote the rules to support it. This is a tenet of YMDC.
In the end what you have is, "we ignore the IC leaving a unit rules because I say they do because that is how I treat 'removed from play'." That is perfectly fine for House Rules, especially when there are no actual rules defining the situation. But at least recognize when you are doing it.
col_impact wrote: The IC is 'not in play' at the start of the following phase. If he were in play that rule would definitely affect him. But alas, he is not 'in play'. The rule must specifically address the 'removed from play' zone to affect units 'not in play'. As has been shown, the game breaks if regular rules of play are free to apply to units that are 'not in play' so the game requires that rules specifically address the 'removed from play' zone to be empowered to affect the 'removed from play' zone.
You fail to show a rule that requires him to be in play. Citation please. The rule that states he is part of the unit is the same rule you are claiming to ignore here.
The IC is not participating in the four main phases, or the turn sequence, or in action on the battlefield per rules already cited. If he were participating in the next phase, he would be 'in play' and in violation of the injunction to be "removed from play". He is skipping the next phase and indeed all phases because he is "removed from play". A rule has to return him to play on the battlefield to return him to participating in the four main phases.
You need to provide a rule that specifically addresses the IC while "removed from play" in order to detach him while the IC is "removed from play".
Lack of participation does not mean that its rules are ignored, especially when those rules are not limited to a time phrase or status of "in play". The IC rules regarding the IC leaving the unit when the rest of the unit is destroyed is the trigger. This trigger does not have any requirement of the IC being in play or not, but reliant on the rest of the models NOT being in play.
With no rule stating such a requirement that the model in question being in play, I have no right to deny this trigger. With no rule stating that a model not in play is denied any trigger of its special rule, I cannot deny this trigger.
So, again, you are making assumptions on the rules and calling them RAW. And since you ask so many to do this, mark your posts HYWPI.
At this point Charistophe I have advanced a definition of 'play' using quotes from the BRB.
Play is something that occurs 'over the battlefield'.
Play is also something that happens during the game. It happens after the start of the game and before the end of the game.
The length of play of the game is measured by turns which are further divided into phases and these phases are when play is allowed to happen.
Play is also something that units get to do as participants in the flow of the game play of the 4 main phases (movement, psychic, shooting, assault).
So a unit that is "removed from play" is placed outside of the Battlefield and does not participate in the 4 main phases.
So again, at this point Charistophe I have advanced a definition of 'play' using quotes from the BRB.
Up to this point, you have avoided advancing a definition of 'play' even though the BRB requires you to occasionally remove models from play.
Without a definition of 'play' and a way to resolve "remove from play" your counter argument is wholly incomplete, wholly untenable, and wholly invalid, and my RAW argument stands uncontested.
You need to advance a counter definition of 'play' and then indicate how you fulfill the injunction to remove the IC from play or else concede to my complete and tenable RAW argument and mark your argument as "invalid".
It's time for you to put up a definition of 'play' and show how you resolve 'remove from play' or concede.
This is how it goes down RAW. An IC is attached to a unit of scarabs and the whole lot of them are removed from play as casualties and put on the side of the table. No play happens at the side of the table off the battlefield. No play transpires for the IC and scarabs in the "removed from play" zone. They skip the turns and phases of the game - if they didn't skip them then they would not be "removed from play". If a rule returns the unit of scarabs to play then it returns the IC to play as well. No rule transpired that would detach the IC from the scarab unit.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
mondo80 wrote: The formation requires the following as written:
1 Necron Overlord
1 unit on warriors
1 unit of canoptek scarabs
1 triach stalker
Other than Overlord and stalker it doesn't list the model count or transport options of the unit.
So in theory you take that formation to duochbag level and go:
1 Overlord
20 warriors with either a ghost ark or night scythe
9 scarabs
1 stalker
Huh? Have you played the Formation? Boosting the Warrior count and adding a Ghost Ark is not optimal at all. The extra warriors and Ghost Ark should come from a CAD or a Decurion.
col_impact wrote: At this point Charistophe I have advanced a definition of 'play' using quotes from the BRB.
Which has absolutely nothing regarding the limitations of something removed from play, now does it, maj_impact?
col_impact wrote: So a unit that is "removed from play" is placed outside of the Battlefield and does not participate in the 4 main phases.
Assumptions, assumptions, you post nothing but assumptions. You are trying to define it by what it is not by making a definition of what is. And with no rules, you cannot actually provide such a definition.
col_impact wrote: So again, at this point Charistophe I have advanced a definition of 'play' using quotes from the BRB.
Well, cap_impact that is rather pointless since you need to be providing how being removed from play restricts a model's rules to all but the most specifically addressed.
col_impact wrote: Up to this point, you have avoided advancing a definition of 'play' even though the BRB requires you to occasionally remove models from play.
Because my case does not depend on the definition of "play" in order for it to work. Why should I advance something unrelated to my case? If you were actually paying attention (something you trend not to do), you would be aware of what my case actually is.
col_impact wrote: Without a definition of 'play' and a way to resolve "remove from play" your counter argument is wholly incomplete, wholly untenable, and wholly invalid, and my RAW argument stands uncontested.
Why? My counter argument just points out the holes in your argument, the largest of which is YOU HAVE NOT ACTUALLY QUOTED ANYTHING TO DIRECTLY SUPPORT YOUR CASE.
col_impact wrote: You need to advance a counter definition of 'play' and then indicate how you fulfill the injunction to remove the IC from play or else concede to my complete and tenable RAW argument and mark your argument as "invalid".
Why should I? You have not supported your concept of "removed from play" with any level of accuracy than your own assumptions.
col_impact wrote: It's time for you to put up a definition of 'play' and show how you resolve 'remove from play' or concede.
Again, why? Being in play, or out of it, is YOUR case, not mine. You have provided zero evidence that being removed from play carries the restrictions you believe it has. You are basing it on other definitions you have gleaned from other games and applying them here. Then you are declaring them as RAW. While operating the game under your assumptions is fine so long as you recognize it, to say something is RAW when nothing is written is pure sophistry.
My case has been: you follow the rules as they are written, and the IC rules regarding leaving a unit do not say they have to be alive or in play to do so, since they actually have other triggers.
col_impact wrote: This is how it goes down RAW. An IC is attached to a unit of scarabs and the whole lot of them are removed from play as casualties and put on the side of the table. No play happens at the side of the table off the battlefield. No play transpires for the IC and scarabs in the "removed from play" zone. They skip the turns and phases of the game - if they didn't skip them then they would not be "removed from play". If a rule returns the unit of scarabs to play then it returns the IC to play as well. No rule transpired that would detach the IC from the scarab unit.
No quotes, no quotes, no quotes to support this assumption.
mondo80 wrote: The formation requires the following as written:
1 Necron Overlord
1 unit on warriors
1 unit of canoptek scarabs
1 triach stalker
Other than Overlord and stalker it doesn't list the model count or transport options of the unit.
So in theory you take that formation to duochbag level and go:
1 Overlord
20 warriors with either a ghost ark or night scythe
9 scarabs
1 stalker
Huh? Have you played the Formation? Boosting the Warrior count and adding a Ghost Ark is not optimal at all. The extra warriors and Ghost Ark should come from a CAD or a Decurion.
This is a Tactics answer and consideration, not a rules answer or consideration.
To be more on point, you can take 3 Stalkers in one unit, so:
1 Overlord
20 Warriors with a ghost ark
9 Scarabs
3 Stalkers
Though, to be honest, it would be a consideration to do this for one main reason. Yes, you will want another unit of Warriors for this, and having it maxed out with a Ghost Ark would still be a good idea.
Use the second unit of Warriors and a Ghost Ark to provide a shield of replenishing Wounds for the Overlord, as without the Overlord, this whole Formation is largely useless. You send out the Formation Scarabs and Warriors to go out and do damage, while using the Stalkers to improve the Warriors' BS. When they FINALLY kill the Formation's Warriors, boom, the 20 Warriors come back in fighting strength and they have to start all over again. Scarabs will be used as Assault bombs mostly to get really shooty stuff in to Assault so they cannot shoot or to tie up Assault units in bad positions to let the Overlord move away. They finally kill the little buggers and they come back just in time to charge out and Assault them again.
Either way, just don't leave that Overlord in a position to be removed. He is the key to the whole Formation.
This Formation really is the epitome of the annoyance of fighting Necrons. "Why won't you just DIE?!"
col_impact wrote: At this point Charistophe I have advanced a definition of 'play' using quotes from the BRB.
Which has absolutely nothing regarding the limitations of something removed from play, now does it, maj_impact?
col_impact wrote: So a unit that is "removed from play" is placed outside of the Battlefield and does not participate in the 4 main phases.
Assumptions, assumptions, you post nothing but assumptions. You are trying to define it by what it is not by making a definition of what is. And with no rules, you cannot actually provide such a definition.
col_impact wrote: So again, at this point Charistophe I have advanced a definition of 'play' using quotes from the BRB.
Well, cap_impact that is rather pointless since you need to be providing how being removed from play restricts a model's rules to all but the most specifically addressed.
col_impact wrote: Up to this point, you have avoided advancing a definition of 'play' even though the BRB requires you to occasionally remove models from play.
Because my case does not depend on the definition of "play" in order for it to work. Why should I advance something unrelated to my case? If you were actually paying attention (something you trend not to do), you would be aware of what my case actually is.
col_impact wrote: Without a definition of 'play' and a way to resolve "remove from play" your counter argument is wholly incomplete, wholly untenable, and wholly invalid, and my RAW argument stands uncontested.
Why? My counter argument just points out the holes in your argument, the largest of which is YOU HAVE NOT ACTUALLY QUOTED ANYTHING TO DIRECTLY SUPPORT YOUR CASE.
col_impact wrote: You need to advance a counter definition of 'play' and then indicate how you fulfill the injunction to remove the IC from play or else concede to my complete and tenable RAW argument and mark your argument as "invalid".
Why should I? You have not supported your concept of "removed from play" with any level of accuracy than your own assumptions.
col_impact wrote: It's time for you to put up a definition of 'play' and show how you resolve 'remove from play' or concede.
Again, why? Being in play, or out of it, is YOUR case, not mine. You have provided zero evidence that being removed from play carries the restrictions you believe it has. You are basing it on other definitions you have gleaned from other games and applying them here. Then you are declaring them as RAW. While operating the game under your assumptions is fine so long as you recognize it, to say something is RAW when nothing is written is pure sophistry.
Charistoph wrote: My case has been: you follow the rules as they are written, and the IC rules regarding leaving a unit do not say they have to be alive or in play to do so, since they actually have other triggers.
We know the IC has been 'removed from play' and you refuse to address what that means so it's a gaping hole in your argument.
You need to know whether the IC rules regarding leaving a unit are a subset of 'play'. If they are then they will not do anything to a model that is 'removed from play'.
You cannot answer anything with authority about whether any particular rule is restricted or not until you sort out what 'play' means and what 'removed from play' means. Your argument is lacking critical info that it would require to offer any kind of solution.
Your argument can only honestly shrug its shoulders and say "I don't know!" but you are not being honest with your argument.
Your offering up of a solution with the state of your argument where it is actually at is deceitful. You say 'sure it will detach' but have no idea what 'play' is or 'removed from play' is which would preclude the ability to detach.
Ignorance of the rules is no excuse. The BRB demands that you place the IC in "removed from play" and you refuse to acknowledge the rule.
You can't offer any legitimate guesses since any legitimate guesses would require asserting what 'play' and what 'remove from play' mean.
If the rule that would detach the IC is a subset of 'play' then it would do nothing on an IC that is 'removed from play' and you cannot answer if the rule that would detach the IC is a subset of 'play'.
So your argument has offered literally nothing to the thread besides that you have no idea. And what is worse is that you won't admit your shortcoming and are prepared to judge on the matter with a gaping hole in your argument. You can neither allow nor disallow the IC from detaching since you know nothing about what 'play' is, and yet 'play' is a fundamental component of 40k. The IC has been designated 'removed from play' and you cannot ignore that designation.
Your refusal to even attempt to define play can only be seen as mean-spirited sophistry. When it suits your purposes you will gleefully pursue a definition of, for example, "shoot" based on scattered inferences.
Your argument remains willfully incomplete and wholly invalid (and intentionally obtuse with regards to offering up a definition of 'play'!) Try again (only this time I ask that you actually try!)
The rulebook is riddled with references to 'play' and we can contextually infer from the written word what 'play' and what 'removed from play' means. We can also make inferences about what 'play' and what 'removed from play' means by throwing out any lines of reasoning that lead to broken unplayable games and we can infer also based on general English usage. We have to infer something because the BRB demands we place the IC in "removed from play" so we best do it.
Spoiler:
During his turn, a player can usually move and fight once with each of his units. For convenience and flow of game play, we divide a player’s turn into four main phases: Movement, Psychic, Shooting and Assault.
This means that you move any models you want to first, then when you are finished all of your moving, your psykers can invoke the power of the Warp. Then you can shoot with your models, and finally, once your shooting is all completed, you can charge into assault and resolve any close combats. This process helps to keep track of what is going on and makes it easier to know when one player’s actions are over and their opponent can start his turn (and take his revenge).
Spoiler:
THE BATTLEFIELD
The battlefield over which your game is played must be set up before the game begins. This step is split into two parts: creating the battlefield itself, and placing scenery upon it.
We also know that game play happens between the Start of the Game and the End of the game. Game play commences with the Start of the Game and ends with the End of the Game and generally has the length of certain number of game turns.
Spoiler:
GAME LENGTH
For most games, the length of the game will be a certain number of game turns.
Spoiler:
Not Enough Room
It’s not uncommon to find that you can’t fit all of the models in your army into your deployment zone. When this happens, any units that can’t fit into your deployment zone must be held back as Reserves, and will enter play later during the battle, hopefully when there is room for them to fit onto the battlefield.
Spoiler:
If a unit enters Reserve part way through the game, such as a Flyer leaving the battlefield, this is referred to as entering Ongoing Reserves. Units in Ongoing Reserve always re-enter play at the start of their controlling player’s following turn, but otherwise follow the normal rules for Reserves.
We know that the turn, the Main Phases, and the Battlefield are the fundamental components of "play" in 40k.
The turn and the Main Phases comprise the "play" action that can take place on the Battlefield, which is the "in play" zone.
An IC that is "removed from play" is torn from the game play and placed in a stasis where the IC cannot interact with any regular game play at all - no participation in the turn of the 4 Main Phases. Only specific rules that address this "removed from play" zone can change the IC's state.
The "removed from play" zone is a special zone and set apart from the regular rules of play of 40k. Units that are "removed from play" are not on the battlefield where play occurs and are excluded from participating in the flow of game play which is comprised of turns and the 4 main phases.
"Removed from play" means you don't get to play with the model anymore, period. No rules, nothing. Its removed from game play and has zero impact on the game until it gets specific permission to re-enter the game or factors into specific things like scoring at the End of the Game.
The trigger to detach the IC from the scarab unit happens on the next phase after the IC has already been removed from play. At that point in time, the IC is skipping the phases and turns of play, since joining in with the phases and turns of play violates the injunction that the IC be "removed from play".
The game requires a separation between units that are 'in play' and units that are 'not in play' or it falls apart. The regular basic rules of play (movement, shooting, assault, etc) can only apply to units that are 'in play' or all sorts of silliness ensues like units in reserves shooting units on the battlefield if they are positioned close enough outside of the battlefield to do so.
Indisputably, when the IC dies as part of the unit of scarabs he is removed from play as a casualty and as part of the unit of scarabs. The IC rules do not consider IC death as a trigger to detach from the host unit so he is removed from play as part of that unit. Since he is 'not in play' the regular rules of units 'in play' do not affect him. Regular rules of play have no affect on the 'not in play' zone unless they specifically address that zone.
If the IC were still in play and the rest of the scarabs died around him he would detach. However, the IC is not still in play and no rule is specifically addressing him in the 'removed from play' zone that would detach him.
Charistoph wrote: My case has been: you follow the rules as they are written, and the IC rules regarding leaving a unit do not say they have to be alive or in play to do so, since they actually have other triggers.
We know the IC has been 'removed from play' and you refuse to address what that means so it's a gaping hole in your argument.
No it is not. This is only your assumption since you cannot provide any actual rules stating the hole exists.
col_impact wrote: You need to know whether the IC rules regarding leaving a unit are a subset of 'play'. If they are then they will not do anything to a model that is 'removed from play'.
You cannot answer anything with authority about whether any particular rule is restricted or not until you sort out what 'play' means and what 'removed from play' means. Your argument is lacking critical info that it would require to offer any kind of solution.
No, I don't, since none of the rules in question bring it up. It is only required in your mind, not in the rulebook.
col_impact wrote: Your argument can only honestly shrug its shoulders and say "I don't know!" but you are not being honest with your argument.
Your offering up of a solution with the state of your argument where it is actually at is deceitful. You say 'sure it will detach' but have no idea what 'play' is or 'removed from play' is which would preclude the ability to detach.
Ignorance of the rules is no excuse. The BRB demands that you place the IC in "removed from play" and you refuse to acknowledge the rule.
Actually, I am saying that being "removed from play" is not relevant without rules saying they ARE relevant. It is your unsupported, unsubstantiated, sophristric opinion that this condition is relevant to the rule in question. Your demonstrated ignorance of the rules is no excuse at this point. The BRB does not state anything about being "removed from play" as having any affect on this matter.
col_impact wrote: You can't offer any legitimate guesses since any legitimate guesses would require asserting what 'play' and what 'remove from play' mean.
If the rule that would detach the IC is a subset of 'play' then it would do nothing on an IC that is 'removed from play' and you cannot answer if the rule that would detach the IC is a subset of 'play'.
So your argument has offered literally nothing to the thread besides that you have no idea. And what is worse is that you won't admit your shortcoming and are prepared to judge on the matter with a gaping hole in your argument. You can neither allow nor disallow the IC from detaching since you know nothing about what 'play' is, and yet 'play' is a fundamental component of 40k. The IC has been designated 'removed from play' and you cannot ignore that designation.
Your refusal to even attempt to define play can only be seen as mean-spirited sophistry. When it suits your purposes you will gleefully pursue a definition of, for example, "shoot" based on scattered inferences.
Your argument remains willfully incomplete and wholly invalid (and intentionally obtuse with regards to offering up a definition of 'play'!) Try again (only this time I ask that you actually try!)
I am not the one trying to use unwritten rules as RAW here, pvt_impact. As such, you are the one practicing sophistry. Your choice to deliberately and intentionally continue to do so can only mean that you are being mean-spirited and obtuse.
I do not have to bring up a definition of "play" because my case is NOT dependent on recognizing this condition. YOU, and only you, are the one who is obsessed with the status of being in play or out of play and that rules cannot be used when out of play. You have not supported this with anything but assumptions you declare as RAW. That is sophistry.
col_impact wrote: An IC that is "removed from play" is torn from the game play and placed in a stasis where the IC cannot interact with any regular game play at all - no participation in the turn of the 4 Main Phases. Only specific rules that address this "removed from play" zone can change the IC's state.
You have established what "in play" is, and those paramters, but you have not established how it affects the opposite. You claim that it is put in stasis and only rules addressing "removed from play" can change this state. I have asked for you to quote this from the rulebook on this point, and your refusal to do so indicates your ignorance of the rules and your position. Your deliberate pursuit of this without researching sufficiently to properly prove your position indicates that you have no desire to actually address the counter-argument which is this, "The rules do directly not state anything to support your position that a model's rules are ignored when the models is removed from play." The only way to counter this counter-argument is to provide the rules which do directly support your position. After all these pages and posts, you have had time. You have failed at every single entry.
col_impact wrote: The "removed from play" zone is a special zone and set apart from the regular rules of play of 40k. Units that are "removed from play" are not on the battlefield where play occurs and are excluded from participating in the flow of game play which is comprised of turns and the 4 main phases.
Where is the rule that states this?
col_impact wrote: "Removed from play" means you don't get to play with the model anymore, period. No rules, nothing. Its removed from game play and has zero impact on the game until it gets specific permission to re-enter the game or factors into specific things like scoring at the End of the Game.
Where is the rule that states this?
col_impact wrote: The trigger to detach the IC from the scarab unit happens on the next phase after the IC has already been removed from play. At that point in time, the IC is skipping the phases and turns of play, since joining in with the phases and turns of play violates the injunction that the IC be "removed from play".
Incorrect. The trigger happens when the unit dies. The detaching event happens at the start of the next phase. This is only your interpretation. The IC is not permitted to skip Phases. Its options are just very very limited.
I see that you don't bother to quote for this, either.
col_impact wrote: The game requires a separation between units that are 'in play' and units that are 'not in play' or it falls apart. The regular basic rules of play (movement, shooting, assault, etc) can only apply to units that are 'in play' or all sorts of silliness ensues like units in reserves shooting units on the battlefield if they are positioned close enough outside of the battlefield to do so.
That is not in argument, and if you have actually bothered to read what I have said, you would be aware of that. I just do not agree with you on what those limitations when removed from play are. Which I have said ad nauseum up to this point.
col_impact wrote: Indisputably, when the IC dies as part of the unit of scarabs he is removed from play as a casualty and as part of the unit of scarabs. The IC rules do not consider IC death as a trigger to detach from the host unit so he is removed from play as part of that unit. Since he is 'not in play' the regular rules of units 'in play' do not affect him. Regular rules of play have no affect on the 'not in play' zone unless they specifically address that zone.
If the IC were still in play and the rest of the scarabs died around him he would detach. However, the IC is not still in play and no rule is specifically addressing him in the 'removed from play' zone that would detach him.
Yet, the IC rules regarding leaving a unit do not possess any "in play" requirements, nor are there any rules stating that these triggers and events cannot occur when the IC is also removed from play. I simply do not have permission to deny these rules just because the possessor was removed from play.
To put it simply, you are lying to yourself and everyone else on this board when you claim these are Written Rules, as you cannot quote anything to support it. You have found rules that could, possibly, imply it from the opposite perspective, but Implied Rules are not Written Rules of the game any more than the rules for Tournament Points are Written Rules of the game. If you wish to continue to pursue this line of thought, please properly indicate that, while they are not written, they are how you believe it should be played. I even gave you an example on how to do this when I addressed the Scarab question. But I think you are too stuck in to this idea that it has consumed you.
Charistoph wrote: My case has been: you follow the rules as they are written, and the IC rules regarding leaving a unit do not say they have to be alive or in play to do so, since they actually have other triggers.
We know the IC has been 'removed from play' and you refuse to address what that means so it's a gaping hole in your argument.
No it is not. This is only your assumption since you cannot provide any actual rules stating the hole exists.
col_impact wrote: You need to know whether the IC rules regarding leaving a unit are a subset of 'play'. If they are then they will not do anything to a model that is 'removed from play'.
You cannot answer anything with authority about whether any particular rule is restricted or not until you sort out what 'play' means and what 'removed from play' means. Your argument is lacking critical info that it would require to offer any kind of solution.
No, I don't, since none of the rules in question bring it up. It is only required in your mind, not in the rulebook.
col_impact wrote: Your argument can only honestly shrug its shoulders and say "I don't know!" but you are not being honest with your argument.
Your offering up of a solution with the state of your argument where it is actually at is deceitful. You say 'sure it will detach' but have no idea what 'play' is or 'removed from play' is which would preclude the ability to detach.
Ignorance of the rules is no excuse. The BRB demands that you place the IC in "removed from play" and you refuse to acknowledge the rule.
Actually, I am saying that being "removed from play" is not relevant without rules saying they ARE relevant. It is your unsupported, unsubstantiated, sophristric opinion that this condition is relevant to the rule in question. Your demonstrated ignorance of the rules is no excuse at this point. The BRB does not state anything about being "removed from play" as having any affect on this matter.
col_impact wrote: You can't offer any legitimate guesses since any legitimate guesses would require asserting what 'play' and what 'remove from play' mean.
If the rule that would detach the IC is a subset of 'play' then it would do nothing on an IC that is 'removed from play' and you cannot answer if the rule that would detach the IC is a subset of 'play'.
So your argument has offered literally nothing to the thread besides that you have no idea. And what is worse is that you won't admit your shortcoming and are prepared to judge on the matter with a gaping hole in your argument. You can neither allow nor disallow the IC from detaching since you know nothing about what 'play' is, and yet 'play' is a fundamental component of 40k. The IC has been designated 'removed from play' and you cannot ignore that designation.
Your refusal to even attempt to define play can only be seen as mean-spirited sophistry. When it suits your purposes you will gleefully pursue a definition of, for example, "shoot" based on scattered inferences.
Your argument remains willfully incomplete and wholly invalid (and intentionally obtuse with regards to offering up a definition of 'play'!) Try again (only this time I ask that you actually try!)
I am not the one trying to use unwritten rules as RAW here, pvt_impact. As such, you are the one practicing sophistry. Your choice to deliberately and intentionally continue to do so can only mean that you are being mean-spirited and obtuse.
I do not have to bring up a definition of "play" because my case is NOT dependent on recognizing this condition. YOU, and only you, are the one who is obsessed with the status of being in play or out of play and that rules cannot be used when out of play. You have not supported this with anything but assumptions you declare as RAW. That is sophistry.
col_impact wrote: An IC that is "removed from play" is torn from the game play and placed in a stasis where the IC cannot interact with any regular game play at all - no participation in the turn of the 4 Main Phases. Only specific rules that address this "removed from play" zone can change the IC's state.
You have established what "in play" is, and those paramters, but you have not established how it affects the opposite. You claim that it is put in stasis and only rules addressing "removed from play" can change this state. I have asked for you to quote this from the rulebook on this point, and your refusal to do so indicates your ignorance of the rules and your position. Your deliberate pursuit of this without researching sufficiently to properly prove your position indicates that you have no desire to actually address the counter-argument which is this, "The rules do directly not state anything to support your position that a model's rules are ignored when the models is removed from play." The only way to counter this counter-argument is to provide the rules which do directly support your position. After all these pages and posts, you have had time. You have failed at every single entry.
col_impact wrote: The "removed from play" zone is a special zone and set apart from the regular rules of play of 40k. Units that are "removed from play" are not on the battlefield where play occurs and are excluded from participating in the flow of game play which is comprised of turns and the 4 main phases.
Where is the rule that states this?
col_impact wrote: "Removed from play" means you don't get to play with the model anymore, period. No rules, nothing. Its removed from game play and has zero impact on the game until it gets specific permission to re-enter the game or factors into specific things like scoring at the End of the Game.
Where is the rule that states this?
col_impact wrote: The trigger to detach the IC from the scarab unit happens on the next phase after the IC has already been removed from play. At that point in time, the IC is skipping the phases and turns of play, since joining in with the phases and turns of play violates the injunction that the IC be "removed from play".
Incorrect. The trigger happens when the unit dies. The detaching event happens at the start of the next phase. This is only your interpretation. The IC is not permitted to skip Phases. Its options are just very very limited.
I see that you don't bother to quote for this, either.
col_impact wrote: The game requires a separation between units that are 'in play' and units that are 'not in play' or it falls apart. The regular basic rules of play (movement, shooting, assault, etc) can only apply to units that are 'in play' or all sorts of silliness ensues like units in reserves shooting units on the battlefield if they are positioned close enough outside of the battlefield to do so.
That is not in argument, and if you have actually bothered to read what I have said, you would be aware of that. I just do not agree with you on what those limitations when removed from play are. Which I have said ad nauseum up to this point.
col_impact wrote: Indisputably, when the IC dies as part of the unit of scarabs he is removed from play as a casualty and as part of the unit of scarabs. The IC rules do not consider IC death as a trigger to detach from the host unit so he is removed from play as part of that unit. Since he is 'not in play' the regular rules of units 'in play' do not affect him. Regular rules of play have no affect on the 'not in play' zone unless they specifically address that zone.
If the IC were still in play and the rest of the scarabs died around him he would detach. However, the IC is not still in play and no rule is specifically addressing him in the 'removed from play' zone that would detach him.
Yet, the IC rules regarding leaving a unit do not possess any "in play" requirements, nor are there any rules stating that these triggers and events cannot occur when the IC is also removed from play. I simply do not have permission to deny these rules just because the possessor was removed from play.
To put it simply, you are lying to yourself and everyone else on this board when you claim these are Written Rules, as you cannot quote anything to support it. You have found rules that could, possibly, imply it from the opposite perspective, but Implied Rules are not Written Rules of the game any more than the rules for Tournament Points are Written Rules of the game. If you wish to continue to pursue this line of thought, please properly indicate that, while they are not written, they are how you believe it should be played. I even gave you an example on how to do this when I addressed the Scarab question. But I think you are too stuck in to this idea that it has consumed you.
Charistophe, the IC is indisputably in a state of "removed from play" and your continual ignoring of that fact can only mean that you are aware that doing what I ask and offering up a definition for consideration for "removed from play" will only reveal your argument to be propped up on a house of cards.
Seriously. Why the continual dodging? Surely you can take a stab at what "removed from play" means based on its relatively common use through the BRB. Since the IC is indeed in a state of "removed from play" you cannot offer up a statement of no comment and claim that your argument is definitive. Your argument has a gaping hole in it and one that you refuse to acknowledge.
Until you offer up a definition like I have of what "removed from play" can possibly mean you have no business offering a perspective on whether the IC can detach from the unit while "removed from play". To suggest you could is ludicrous. The IC is in a state of "removed from play" and you cannot get around that fact and must deal with it. You must first answer what that means to the best of your understanding and only then can we discuss whether a rule action is legal or not legal.
Continued refusal to offer up a definition of "removed from play" can only be interpreted as concession on your part that your argument is not worthy of serious consideration.
All the evidence we have from the BRB would indicate that being "removed from play" places the unit in a very restricted state where the unit would not interact at all with hardly any rules, since nearly all rules would be rules comprising rules of "play". The turn, the 4 main phases, and the Battlefield are all fundamental components of "play" and the IC is removed from all of them. The rule that would detach the IC from the "removed from play" zone is dependent on "play" and so cannot function on an IC that is "removed from play"
A unit that is "removed from play" is wholly removed from the Battlefield where 'play' happens and is wholly removed from the scheduling of the turns and the 4 Main phases when 'play' happens.
The IC rule that you would have detach the IC from the unit is dependent on 'play' and so cannot function on a unit that is 'removed from play'.
And until you offer up a definition of what 'removed from play' means you cannot counter my argument. My complete and tenable argument trumps your incomplete, evasive, and invalid argument.
In reality all you need to do to defeat my argument is to come up with a plausible definition of "removed from play" that supports your argument - a definition that enables the IC to detach from the unit of scarabs while "removed from play" and a definition that is in accord with what we can ascertain about 'play'. Based on my analysis of the use of 'play' in the rules I see a fairly radical distinction between 'in play' and 'not in play' which puts the IC that is 'removed from play' in a non-interactive state with nearly all rules, with the exception being rules that specifically address the 'removed from play' zone.
Your refusal to take up the challenge and try to come up with a plausible definition for "removed from play" only augments my argument, so why continue dodging? You can't claim to have a tenable argument if you can't answer the simple question of what "removed from play" means and be able to provide a plausible answer.
In order for you to have a tenable argument you are going to have to tackle what "removed from play" means. The scenario we are discussing requires an answer put forward by you.
I do not have to tackle what "removed from play" means since it is your case, not mine. Especially since I do not disagree with the determination of the status (as I have repeated numerous times already). I only have to tackle what its effects are.
To which, no notable effects are expressly written for being "removed from play", so are only what one chooses to consider them as. Since it is not written and only what we the players choose to impose, it makes it a House Rule, not RAW.
I cannot believe you have not understood this fact up to this point after the many many times I have explicitly stated this.
It seems like col_impact is saying that a unit with any number of ICs attached during the game that is killed only counts as one Kill Point, since the IC is somehow still attached when dead.
That's a pretty obvious rules violation, and therefore impact's interpretation fails.
Elric Greywolf wrote: It seems like col_impact is saying that a unit with any number of ICs attached during the game that is killed only counts as one Kill Point, since the IC is somehow still attached when dead.
That's a pretty obvious rules violation, and therefore impact's interpretation fails.
No apparently that part of the rule is not in affect when we go to measure Kill Points because the IC started as a unit and is still subtly his own unit. Never mind that he is NOT considered his own unit when the Warriors/Scarabs are returned to the table. He likes contradictions in his rules-perspective.
You guys should just let him think whatever he wants. Not a single person has supported his interpretation. When one person is absolutely convinced a situation works a certain way and can't drum up even a single supporting voice... well, that person should probably just be ignored.
In that sense, there is a general community consensus, if not an absolute one.
The most reasonable interpretation is that "the unit" is referring to the destroyed unit as defined by your army list and NOT what the unit looks like as the last model is removed as a casualty. This would mean no extra models and no ICs. I can't imagine any TO playing this otherwise.
In a casual environment, talk to your opponent, but based on the responses in this thread, expect a negative reaction if you want to bring extra models or ICs back from the dead.
Kriswall wrote: You guys should just let him think whatever he wants. Not a single person has supported his interpretation. When one person is absolutely convinced a situation works a certain way and can't drum up even a single supporting voice... well, that person should probably just be ignored.
I have no problem with him considering how he wants to play the game.
I do take offense to being called a liar for pointing out that his opinions are not RAW when he cannot present a proper quote to support himself.
Kriswall wrote: You guys should just let him think whatever he wants. Not a single person has supported his interpretation. When one person is absolutely convinced a situation works a certain way and can't drum up even a single supporting voice... well, that person should probably just be ignored.
I have no problem with him considering how he wants to play the game.
I do take offense to being called a liar for pointing out that his opinions are not RAW when he cannot present a proper quote to support himself.
You'll live a much happier life if you let offensive statements from strangers on the internet just sort of wash right over you. He's called me similar in the past. Sometimes I get a little aggravated, but then remember that in the grand scheme of my life, a random forum poster's opinion doesn't even register.
Elric Greywolf wrote: It seems like col_impact is saying that a unit with any number of ICs attached during the game that is killed only counts as one Kill Point, since the IC is somehow still attached when dead.
That's a pretty obvious rules violation, and therefore impact's interpretation fails.
Incorrect. I have pointed out numerous times that the IC is an individual unit per his ALE and the Purge the Alien rule references his ALE and scores based on the ALE. You have to show how the ALE is removed from the IC to counter my argument.
Elric Greywolf wrote: It seems like col_impact is saying that a unit with any number of ICs attached during the game that is killed only counts as one Kill Point, since the IC is somehow still attached when dead.
That's a pretty obvious rules violation, and therefore impact's interpretation fails.
No apparently that part of the rule is not in affect when we go to measure Kill Points because the IC started as a unit and is still subtly his own unit. Never mind that he is NOT considered his own unit when the Warriors/Scarabs are returned to the table. He likes contradictions in his rules-perspective.
As already indicated the Purge the Alien script only references the ALE. The IC is always an individual unit whether attached or detached. You have to show that the ALE is discarded to counter my argument.
I do not have to tackle what "removed from play" means since it is your case, not mine. Especially since I do not disagree with the determination of the status (as I have repeated numerous times already). I only have to tackle what its effects are.
To which, no notable effects are expressly written for being "removed from play", so are only what one chooses to consider them as. Since it is not written and only what we the players choose to impose, it makes it a House Rule, not RAW.
I cannot believe you have not understood this fact up to this point after the many many times I have explicitly stated this.
Your argument cannot be presented as tenable until you can present plausible definitions of 'play' and 'removed from play' that do not contradict your argument that the IC can detach while 'removed from play'.
If the IC were not 'removed from play' your argument would not be dependent upon presenting plausible definitions of 'play' and 'removed from play'.
However, since the IC is indeed 'removed from play' and 'play' is a pervasive category which would include almost all rules, it is up to you to show how the rule that you would use to detach from the IC could apply at all.
There is a dependency that you are simply not attending to. The state the IC is in is critical info.
1) John is in a state of Quasi-quasi.
1a) If John is Quasi-quasi he has permanently lost his arms.
2) Color John's fingernails blue.
What are the color of John's fingernails?
Your argument is saying that since "color John's fingernails blue" did not have the condition "while not Quasi-quasi" then it has no problem coloring his fingernails and his fingernail's are now definitively blue and you don't have to care what Quasi-quasi means. However, John is in a state where the 2nd rule simply cannot apply based on the state John is in (no arms).
Similarly, the IC is in a special state and you have to define what that state is before you know if the rule can even apply - even if the rule you are trying to apply makes no mention of this special state!
Again, all you have to do is present a plausible definition of 'play' and a plausible definition of 'removed from play' that would not affect the IC detaching from the unit in the subsequent phase and you could defeat my argument.
Since you refuse to address the gaping hole in your argument, your argument is untenable - an argument cannot be presented as tenable that relies on implausible definitions.
And we can only assume the continued dodging is an attempt to distract from the gaping hole.
The bar is set pretty low here. All you have to do is present a plausible definition of 'play' and a plausible definition of 'removed from play' that would not affect the IC detaching from the unit in the subsequent phase and you could defeat my argument.
Failure or refusal to hit even that low of a bar only underscores that your argument is untenable.
If you were truly trying to get to the truth of the matter at hand in an honest and open manner rather than simply trying to push your argument's agenda through then you would indeed comply and present a plausible definition of removed from play that would not affect the IC detaching from the unit.
Kriswall wrote: You guys should just let him think whatever he wants. Not a single person has supported his interpretation. When one person is absolutely convinced a situation works a certain way and can't drum up even a single supporting voice... well, that person should probably just be ignored.
I have no problem with him considering how he wants to play the game.
I do take offense to being called a liar for pointing out that his opinions are not RAW when he cannot present a proper quote to support himself.
I have never called you a liar. However, people frequently try to be mislead or be deceitful in their argument tactics and I have had to call you out on your tactics. These kind of argument tactics are frequent. People often argue to push an agenda rather than to arrive at the truth of the matter.
All you have to do to convince me that you are well-intentioned and wanting to arrive at the truth of the matter (rather than twist the rules to push an agenda) is provide a plausible definition of "removed from play" that does not undermine your argument. Otherwise you are leaving a pretty big hole in your argument and trying to convince me that it is not relevant (which is an deceitful). If it's not relevant then you should have no problem showing me that it is not relevant by providing a plausible definition of "removed from play" where it is indeed not relevant.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kriswall wrote: You guys should just let him think whatever he wants. Not a single person has supported his interpretation. When one person is absolutely convinced a situation works a certain way and can't drum up even a single supporting voice... well, that person should probably just be ignored.
In that sense, there is a general community consensus, if not an absolute one.
The most reasonable interpretation is that "the unit" is referring to the destroyed unit as defined by your army list and NOT what the unit looks like as the last model is removed as a casualty. This would mean no extra models and no ICs. I can't imagine any TO playing this otherwise.
In a casual environment, talk to your opponent, but based on the responses in this thread, expect a negative reaction if you want to bring extra models or ICs back from the dead.
We are discussing RAW and not the popularity of the RAW or the OPness of the RAW.
General consensus has time and again shown that it will ignore the RAW and assert its house rule and try to pass it off as RAW (see the ITC and Tau Hunter Contingent for example) in order to nerf a minority.
General consensus does not change RAW. It's exceedingly clear what the RAW is in the case of Coordinated Firepower and yet the majority has deluded themselves into thinking otherwise.
I don't care if people want to house rule something like Coordinated Firepower or the Retribution Phalanx, but when they try to pass what they are doing as RAW then I call them on it, since it's deceitful.
Oberron wrote: Does the writing on the spyder directly say it increases the scarabs unit size or does it simply state it just adds another scarab, currently unable to get to my codex atm.
Spoiler:
Scarab Hive: Once per friendly Movement phase, each Canoptek Spyder can use this special rule to create Canoptek Scarabs. To do so, nominate a friendly unit of Canoptek Scarabs that is within 6" of the Canoptek Spyder. Add a single Canoptek Scarab base to the unit – this can take the unit beyond its starting size, but must be placed within 6" of the Canoptek Spyder. If a model cannot be placed for any reason, it is destroyed. Canoptek Scarabs created in this manner can move and act normally this turn. Roll a D6 each time a Canoptek Spyder uses its Scarab Hive special rule, immediately after placing any Canoptek Scarabs that were created – on a roll of a 1 the Canoptek Spyder suffers a single Wound with no saves of any kind allowed.
So, it does not increase the unit's size, it just adds Scarabs, if we take it literally. That it can be taken beyond its starting size is permission granted when adding the base. Nothing in either rule provides an explicit avenue for a Scarab unit of 12 bases to be returned. We can House Rule it to be so, but I doubt many people would accept it unless they could do the same.
Incorrect. "Taking the unit beyond its starting size" is increasing the unit's size. If you still have a unit size of nine somehow, you have not taken the unit beyond it's starting size, and contradict what the rule told you to do. Simple logic.
The RAW is exceedingly clear that the full unit of 12 scarabs will be returned. The unit size of the scarabs has been taken beyond its starting size and there are 12 models in the "removed from play" pile on the side of the table when the "From the Sands, We Rise" rule is triggered. In order to satisfy the rule you have no choice but to return the unit of 12 scarabs to play. There is literally no justification to return anything but the unit of 12.
That is just how the RAW pans out.
I have tested the rule interaction and can attest that it is not OP. However, should the rule interaction make you feel uncomfortable, then you are of course free to house rule it however which way you like.
col_impact wrote: As already indicated the Purge the Alien script only references the ALE. The IC is always an individual unit whether attached or detached. You have to show that the ALE is discarded to counter my argument.
I'm curious about this. According to my copy of the rulebook, the primary objective of Purge the Alien is:
At the end of the game, each player receives 1 Victory Point for each enemy unit that has been completely destroyed. Units that are Falling Back at the end of the game, and units that are not on the board at the end of the game, count as destroyed for the purposes of this mission. Remember that Independent Characters and Dedicated Transports are individual units and award Victory Points if they are destroyed.
Where does the above mention ALEs?
Furthermore, if the underlined part of your statement is true, than you are not treating the IC as a member of the unit for all rules purposes, and your opponent can nominate your IC as a target of a shooting attack.
I think we need to take the heat out of this thread a little...
I don't think there's a 'community consensus' here. Actually I think RAW Col_Impact is right on both accounts.
For characters, the FTSWR rule refers to the unit. We're not told the unit ceases to be a unit on being completely destroyed, in fact the rule clarifying VP's suggests that even in death it is still a unit (otherwise they'd be no need to state the VP thing).
For the size of a unit, I don't think anyone can argue that 9+3 bases isn't the unit... And the rule doesn't say 'original sized unit', just 'the unit' - which, as Col says, is a pile of bases of scarabs on the side of the table in the dead pile.
No that I'd play either... FTSWR is the most broken rule in the game right now!
col_impact wrote: As already indicated the Purge the Alien script only references the ALE. The IC is always an individual unit whether attached or detached. You have to show that the ALE is discarded to counter my argument.
I'm curious about this. According to my copy of the rulebook, the primary objective of Purge the Alien is:
At the end of the game, each player receives 1 Victory Point for each enemy unit that has been completely destroyed. Units that are Falling Back at the end of the game, and units that are not on the board at the end of the game, count as destroyed for the purposes of this mission. Remember that Independent Characters and Dedicated Transports are individual units and award Victory Points if they are destroyed.
Where does the above mention ALEs?
Furthermore, if the underlined part of your statement is true, than you are not treating the IC as a member of the unit for all rules purposes, and your opponent can nominate your IC as a target of a shooting attack.
"counts as part of" does not equal "becomes part of"
The IC is always an individual unit. It is something that can never be fully taken away from the IC as it is part of the ALE.
The Purge the Alien rule in fact proves my point.
"Remember that Independent Characters and Dedicated Transports are individual units" proves that my statement is correct. The rule indicates that under all circumstances (whether attached or detached) the IC is always an individual unit.
No that I'd play either... FTSWR is the most broken rule in the game right now!
I took the extra effort of testing if the rule is broken or not and built a list and played it. The rule is surprisingly not broken.
It's easy to just see the brokenness theoretically possible but you have to factor in the costs which are hidden until you test.
Once you start building a list and playing the list you will see what I mean, so I welcome you to follow up on my testing and post your findings.
If you invest in lots of spyders and a uber-tough castle for the OLord you are setting yourself up to have to recoup a lot of points from the outset.
The scarab unit has to regularly die to recoup those points and the O Lord has to stay alive.
If you grow the scarab unit or attach ICs to it, the unit has a harder time dying. But it needs to regularly die so you can recoup all the points invested in trying to make the unit a recursively growing threat.
By the time you have recouped the costs the game is on turn 5 or 6 or so, and you are just doing ok. Your opponent has had optimal units from the start and only late in the game is the tide starting to turn.
Because of the costs, it winds up underperforming compared to regular Scarab Farm or just Harvest spam.
Ffyllotek wrote: I think we need to take the heat out of this thread a little...
I don't think there's a 'community consensus' here. Actually I think RAW Col_Impact is right on both accounts.
For characters, the FTSWR rule refers to the unit. We're not told the unit ceases to be a unit on being completely destroyed, in fact the rule clarifying VP's suggests that even in death it is still a unit (otherwise they'd be no need to state the VP thing).
For the size of a unit, I don't think anyone can argue that 9+3 bases isn't the unit... And the rule doesn't say 'original sized unit', just 'the unit' - which, as Col says, is a pile of bases of scarabs on the side of the table in the dead pile.
No that I'd play either... FTSWR is the most broken rule in the game right now!
You cannot take the heat out. It is how Col_Impact argues. He basically yells the same point over and over without RAW support until a mod locks the thread.
And you have not addressed any of the counter points in your argument.
Kriswall wrote: You guys should just let him think whatever he wants. Not a single person has supported his interpretation. When one person is absolutely convinced a situation works a certain way and can't drum up even a single supporting voice... well, that person should probably just be ignored.
I have no problem with him considering how he wants to play the game.
I do take offense to being called a liar for pointing out that his opinions are not RAW when he cannot present a proper quote to support himself.
I have never called you a liar. However, people frequently try to be mislead or be deceitful in their argument tactics and I have had to call you out on your tactics. These kind of argument tactics are frequent. People often argue to push an agenda rather than to arrive at the truth of the matter.
You called my arguments sophistry.
The definition of sophistry is, "the use of reasoning or arguments that sound correct but are actually false.". The definition of liar is "one who makes an untrue statement with intent to deceive".
You sir, have called me a liar several times in this thread, while you have either been extensively mistaken or lying for your entire case. Since you have not supported your case with rules, but insistent that it is a rule of the game, I can only consider you a liar at this point.
Kriswall wrote: You guys should just let him think whatever he wants. Not a single person has supported his interpretation. When one person is absolutely convinced a situation works a certain way and can't drum up even a single supporting voice... well, that person should probably just be ignored.
I have no problem with him considering how he wants to play the game.
I do take offense to being called a liar for pointing out that his opinions are not RAW when he cannot present a proper quote to support himself.
I have never called you a liar. However, people frequently try to be mislead or be deceitful in their argument tactics and I have had to call you out on your tactics. These kind of argument tactics are frequent. People often argue to push an agenda rather than to arrive at the truth of the matter.
You called my arguments sophistry.
The definition of sophistry is, "the use of reasoning or arguments that sound correct but are actually false.". The definition of liar is "one who makes an untrue statement with intent to deceive".
You sir, have called me a liar several times in this thread, while you have either been extensively mistaken or lying for your entire case. Since you have not supported your case with rules, but insistent that it is a rule of the game, I can only consider you a liar at this point.
Our difference of opinion stems from a difference on how to handle the "removed from play" rule.
You cannot call your argument RAW if you ignore that rule since it is obviously in effect and descriptive of the status of the IC and the BRB demands that you adhere to it.
The rule book is not silent on what "removed from play" means since it is riddled with references to "play", "in play", "enter into play", and "removed from play", and "removed from play" is semantically 'not connected with play'.
When you actually trace the meaning of "play" in the BRB then you easily see that it is a pervasive concept that includes almost all rules; "removed from play" is therefore a category that is very pertinent to the discussions at hand.
I have come up with and asserted plausible definitions for "play" "removed from play" based on the rules in the BRB, logic, and English usage and those have been implemented into my argument as the rules require.
You have not come up with or asserted any definitions for "play" or "removed from play" even though you are required to in order to rule out any dependencies on any rule interpretation that you would assert.
I have called you out several times to offer a plausible definition for "play" and "removed from play" and you ignore it and assert that you do not have to.
You try to veil your argument as RAW when it ignores a rule plainly written in the book.
If you were able to actually come up with plausible definitions for "play" and "removed from play" that did not preclude the rule that you are using to detach the IC then you could actually win the argument.
However, until you can come up with plausible definitions for "play" and "removed from play" you have an incomplete and untenable argument.
An argument is simply not tenable if it is propped up on missing or implausible definitions.
I am fully prepared to concede the 'IC returning to play with the unit of scarabs' argument provided you actually come up with plausible definitions for "play" and "removed from play" that did not preclude the rule that you are using to detach the IC.
As it stands, the plausible definitions for "play" and "removed from play" that I came up with on analysis of the rules as they are written in the rulebook DO preclude the rule that you are using to detach the IC. I do not ignore the "removed from play" rule plainly written in the BRB and that is why I can claim RAW support over yours.
Ffyllotek wrote: I think we need to take the heat out of this thread a little...
I don't think there's a 'community consensus' here. Actually I think RAW Col_Impact is right on both accounts.
For characters, the FTSWR rule refers to the unit. We're not told the unit ceases to be a unit on being completely destroyed, in fact the rule clarifying VP's suggests that even in death it is still a unit (otherwise they'd be no need to state the VP thing).
For the size of a unit, I don't think anyone can argue that 9+3 bases isn't the unit... And the rule doesn't say 'original sized unit', just 'the unit' - which, as Col says, is a pile of bases of scarabs on the side of the table in the dead pile.
No that I'd play either... FTSWR is the most broken rule in the game right now!
You cannot take the heat out. It is how Col_Impact argues. He basically yells the same point over and over without RAW support until a mod locks the thread.
And you have not addressed any of the counter points in your argument.
I think he argues much like everyone else.
The counter points I just don't see as relevent. To me they don't shed any light nor actually apply in the situation.
On the issue of the unit of 12 scarabs returning to play it's been a pretty slam-dunk case that RAW that the whole unit of 12 returns to play.
It has been shown that the Spyders do increase the unit size of the scarabs and no one has successfully pointed to a rule that says "starting" or "original" that would restrict the pile of 12 scarab models from returning to play.
The thread has now focused on the IC issue which is more controversial.
For me the IC issue hangs now on whether anyone can offer up plausible definitions of "play" or "removed from play" that are coherent with usage in the BRB and that do not preclude the rule that would detach the IC.
